Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Is there any sort of agreement (or common understanding) between the nuclear capable states as to what actually constitutes a tactical nuke?
 
Abizzz said:
Is there any sort of agreement (or common understanding) between the nuclear capable states as to what actually constitutes a tactical nuke?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a tactical nuke as such.

The point is whether a nuke is used against tactical targets like troop concentration on a battlefield, or whether it is used against strategic targets like industrial complexes or even cities.
 
stefan92 said:
There is no such thing as a tactical nuke as such.

The point is whether a nuke is used against tactical targets like troop concentration on a battlefield, or whether it is used against strategic targets like industrial complexes or even cities.
Click to expand...
Well I think those below 50kt are considered tactical. Because they usually can't achieve much against hardened underground targets , and the ones that are in the strategic category while in theory can be used on the battlefield , it would be a waste and also impractical due to the specifics of their delivery platforms.
 
The Firestarter said:
Well I think those below 50kt are considered tactical. Because they usually can't achieve much against hardened underground targets , and the ones that are in the strategic category while in theory can be used on the battlefield , it would be a waste and also impractical due to the specifics of their delivery platforms.
Click to expand...
I understand that and how military strategists talk about it. What I don't understand is how anyone dropping one could know the other capable powers would respect the distinction if there's no shared definition.
 
Abizzz said:
I understand that and how military strategists talk about it. What I don't understand is how anyone dropping one could know the other capable powers would respect the distinction if there's no shared definition.
Click to expand...
They have plans but of course not public , usually you'd want the opposition to fear a full response which would hopefully discourage it in the first place. For 3rd countries like Ukraine it's of course murkier , however I think it was Biden who said that if Rus uses chems/nukes "all bets are off".
 
spiriticon said:
Yeah I'd rather not respond with another nuke if possible. The only time I'd do that is if an ICBM is fired, or if they fired shit tons of small nukes everywhere.

But we should definitely close the sky and possibly move peacekeepers in.
Click to expand...

Would that be seen as deterrence though? If Russian nukes were used against Ukrainian targets, and not just as a willy waving firework, and there was a conventional, non nuclear response, I fear that would just be seen as a sign of weakness that would make a subsequent use more likely. There's been a massive taboo against use of nukes because of a fear of the response - I worry what happens if that taboo gets broken and tactical low yield nukes become a 'permissible' battlefield option.
 
The Firestarter said:
They have plans but of course not public , usually you'd want the opposition to fear a full response which would hopefully discourage it in the first place. For 3rd countries like Ukraine it's of course murkier , however I think it was Biden who said that if Rus uses chems/nukes "all bets are off".
Click to expand...
That they haven't used chemical weapons yet, at least unambiguously, makes me think that message might be being heard.
 
nickm said:
Would that be seen as deterrence though? If Russian nukes were used against Ukrainian targets, and not just as a willy waving firework, and there was a conventional, non nuclear response, I fear that would just be seen as a sign of weakness that would make a subsequent use more likely. There's been a massive taboo against use of nukes because of a fear of the response - I worry what happens if that taboo gets broken and tactical low yield nukes become a 'permissible' battlefield option.
Click to expand...

It's not so much a deterrent but rather a sense of responsbility. I think we owe it to civilisation to give things one more chance before we start properly nuking each other, even when the enemy has lost their head.
 
nickm said:
Would that be seen as deterrence though? If Russian nukes were used against Ukrainian targets, and not just as a willy waving firework, and there was a conventional, non nuclear response, I fear that would just be seen as a sign of weakness that would make a subsequent use more likely. There's been a massive taboo against use of nukes because of a fear of the response - I worry what happens if that taboo gets broken and tactical low yield nukes become a 'permissible' battlefield option.
Click to expand...

Exactly this, you cannot let a nuke go off without a reaction. Using a nuke against a non-nuclear state, especially as the aggressor, can only be met with a similar response. The global impact of that level of escalation will also be severe, as countries naturally allied to Russia will then consider themselves targets of tactical nuclear weapons should they face the US and her allies. So it's fundamentally a scenario that nobody wants to see and Russia will find itself even further isolated. Beyond that it's MAD and to be honest we might as well just watch Kevin Costner's The Postman or Mad Max to understand the longterm consequences.

I do, however, understand why Russian rhetoric is ramping up internally. The propaganda machine can only sell Russia as a militaristic superpower, something that is pretty easy with 6k nukes. Ultimately, it's all they have. I personally don't think that nukes of any description will be used and that fundamentally the worst case scenario for Russia is that they do a full scorched-earth retreat and claim they've cleansed Eastern Ukraine of whatever made up shit they can think of. No matter what happens, they've already lost any future war with NATO due to their tactical blunders and the sheer determination of Western countries to starve Russia of the capability of modernising any further in the future.
 
nickm said:
Would that be seen as deterrence though? If Russian nukes were used against Ukrainian targets, and not just as a willy waving firework, and there was a conventional, non nuclear response, I fear that would just be seen as a sign of weakness that would make a subsequent use more likely. There's been a massive taboo against use of nukes because of a fear of the response - I worry what happens if that taboo gets broken and tactical low yield nukes become a 'permissible' battlefield option.
Click to expand...
I think that would depend on the targets. Conventional strikes against missile bases for example should send quite a strong message.
 
stefan92 said:
I think that would depend on the targets. Conventional strikes against missile bases for example should send quite a strong message.
Click to expand...
Against nuclear missile bases? Doesn't quite work, the silos are hardened and can withstand significant impacts. That's why plans call for hitting them with nuclear weapons, and several per target.

Also once one country attacks the other's strategic arsenal, that is seen as a strategic threat whether nuclear weapons are being used or not, and there's incentive to launch the ICBMs anyway. Use it or lose it becomes the thinking. If you attack nuclear missile bases/silos, you do it as part of a full counter-force strike attempt.

I'm on the side of being very aggressive in the (private) messaging about response to a nuclear strike on a non-nuclear country. It's the only way I see to potentially cut out the possibility of a nuke being used in the first place.
 
Spark said:
Exactly this, you cannot let a nuke go off without a reaction. Using a nuke against a non-nuclear state, especially as the aggressor, can only be met with a similar response. The global impact of that level of escalation will also be severe, as countries naturally allied to Russia will then consider themselves targets of tactical nuclear weapons should they face the US and her allies. So it's fundamentally a scenario that nobody wants to see and Russia will find itself even further isolated. Beyond that it's MAD and to be honest we might as well just watch Kevin Costner's The Postman or Mad Max to understand the longterm consequences.

I do, however, understand why Russian rhetoric is ramping up internally. The propaganda machine can only sell Russia as a militaristic superpower, something that is pretty easy with 6k nukes. Ultimately, it's all they have. I personally don't think that nukes of any description will be used and that fundamentally the worst case scenario for Russia is that they do a full scorched-earth retreat and claim they've cleansed Eastern Ukraine of whatever made up shit they can think of. No matter what happens, they've already lost any future war with NATO due to their tactical blunders and the sheer determination of Western countries to starve Russia of the capability of modernising any further in the future.
Click to expand...

The reaction would be for NATO to go into Ukraine and end everything ASAP. By supporting Ukraine in the air, we pretty much guarantee their win.

If Russia launches multiple nukes, then yes, we have to respond. And then it would definitely be whiskey time for all of us. Also, we have to consider that a nuclear response cannot be fired onto Ukrainian land from our side, because that would be stupid. It would have to be fired onto Russian land.

My view is that once the first nuke is launched, the whole deterrence idea quickly disappears, and we then rely on the restraint of the nuclear powers to prevent armageddon.
 
Last edited:
spiriticon said:
The reaction would be for NATO to go into Ukraine and end everything ASAP. By supporting Ukraine in the air, we pretty much guarantee their win.

If Russia launches multiple nukes, then yes, we have to respond. And it would definitely be whiskey time for all of us.

My view is that once the first nuke is launched, the whole deterrence idea quickly disappears, and we then rely on the restraint of the nuclear powers to prevent armageddon.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. There is no way that Russia launches a nuke and nobody responds. if Putin is bent on doing something, then Ukraine and allies are bent on doing everything to protect and survive. Thers is no fooking way Putin dares to use a WMD and gets away with it.
 
spiriticon said:
If nukes are used in Ukraine, especially in the West, I think NATO will close the sky.
Click to expand...

It would do that and also allow NATO troops to go into Ukraine, as I don't think the world has an appetite for allowing Putin to murder endlessly, just so he can manufacture "a win" back home.
 
nickm said:
Would that be seen as deterrence though? If Russian nukes were used against Ukrainian targets, and not just as a willy waving firework, and there was a conventional, non nuclear response, I fear that would just be seen as a sign of weakness that would make a subsequent use more likely. There's been a massive taboo against use of nukes because of a fear of the response - I worry what happens if that taboo gets broken and tactical low yield nukes become a 'permissible' battlefield option.
Click to expand...
US has expanded its "tactical" nuclear arsenal so it can respond in kind to their use, so Russia can't use them without response.

"“When we look at some of the activities, statements, capabilities that adversaries — or potential adversaries — have pursued, one of the things that we want to make sure that we maintain is a flexible set of capabilities so that they not come to the mistaken impression that would be some ranges of situations where they might employ nuclear weapons — whether they be low-yield or so-called ‘battlefield nuclear weapons,’ things of that nature — in a way that we would feel that we did not have credible response options, in order to preserve deterrence,” Rood said."

https://taskandpurpose.com/analysis/small-nuclear-war/
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
If Putin is really thinking about setting off a nuke to see if things fall more favorably for him afterwards then there isn't much we can do about that.

It would be a huge mistake, worse than the decision to invade in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't see much logic in that vid, even hypothetical guessing of Putin's logic. Its just amplifying their scaremongering rhetoric.

"Putin in his mind is not at war with Ukraine, Putin is at war with USA" Errr yeh Putin has always been at war with USA in some way I am sure, but right now he is most certainly at war with Ukraine.

He'll do more damage to USA and the west by getting the next republican candidate elected.
 
"The U.S. State Department argued in a paper released last week that fitting the low-yield nuclear warheads to submarine-launched ballistic missiles would help counter potential new threats from Russia and China. It charged that Moscow in particular was pondering the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons as a way of coercion in a limited conflict — an assertion that Russia has repeatedly denied.

The State Department noted that the new supplemental warhead “reduces the risk of nuclear war by reinforcing extended deterrence and assurance.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry sees it otherwise.

The ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, commented on the State Department’s paper at a briefing on Wednesday, emphasizing that the U.S. shouldn’t view its new low-yield warheads as a flexible tool that could help avert an all-out nuclear conflict with Russia.

“Any attack involving a U.S. submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), regardless of its weapon specifications, would be perceived as a nuclear aggression,” Zakharova said. “Those who like to theorize about the flexibility of American nuclear potential must understand that in line with the Russian military doctrine such actions are seen as warranting retaliatory use of nuclear weapons by Russia.”

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuc...ussia-slams-us-arguments-for-low-yield-nukes/
 
Last edited:
dal said:
It’s inevitable that Russia will launch a tactical nuke. It’s the only way they think they can gain credence.
Click to expand...
How would using a tactical nuke do anything but make them look even less competent than they already do?
It would surely also burn the few bridges they still have diplomatically.
 
Abizzz said:
I understand that and how military strategists talk about it. What I don't understand is how anyone dropping one could know the other capable powers would respect the distinction if there's no shared definition.
Click to expand...
Both countries have said that any nuclear weapons fired will be treated the same.
 
Simbo said:
I don't see much logic in that vid, even hypothetical guessing of Putin's logic. Its just amplifying their scaremongering rhetoric.

"Putin in his mind is not at war with Ukraine, Putin is at war with USA" Errr yeh Putin has always been at war with USA in some way I am sure, but right now he is most certainly at war with Ukraine.

He'll do more damage to USA and the west by getting the next republican candidate elected.
Click to expand...

I don't see what the next step would be if he did use a nuke.

Yes, Putin would have proved he would use them but it wouldn't win him the war in Ukraine wherever he dropped it.

So he makes demands or else he uses another one?

I don't get it as an idea unless he thinks everyone just folds because he is the only one prepared to use them.
 
Another new weapon system appeared:


The German DM22 is essentially a Panzerfaust with an automatic trigger that can be placed next to a road. So it is classified as a mine, but doesn't attack from below but from the sides.

Germany delivered about 2000 mines to Ukraine, but it wasn't published which types, so we have to rely on such reports to gather some more information about them.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I don't see what the next step would be if he did use a nuke.

Yes, Putin would have proved he would use them but it wouldn't win him the war in Ukraine wherever he dropped it.

So he makes demands or else he uses another one?

I don't get it as an idea unless he thinks everyone just folds because he is the only one prepared to use them.
Click to expand...

I agree, its mindless. The whole point is just to get us talking about it.

As things went bad to worse he was always going to play the 'threaten nukes' card, it is standard stuff.

The 'use nukes offensively against a smaller non-nuclear neighbour because my conventional military is shit' card just doesn't exist. The 'nuke NATO for supplying them' card definately doesn't.
 
spiriticon said:
The reaction would be for NATO to go into Ukraine and end everything ASAP. By supporting Ukraine in the air, we pretty much guarantee their win.

If Russia launches multiple nukes, then yes, we have to respond. And then it would definitely be whiskey time for all of us. Also, we have to consider that a nuclear response cannot be fired onto Ukrainian land from our side, because that would be stupid. It would have to be fired onto Russian land.

My view is that once the first nuke is launched, the whole deterrence idea quickly disappears, and we then rely on the restraint of the nuclear powers to prevent armageddon.
Click to expand...

Yeah, agree that that'll be the NATO response. But it'll mean firing on Russian troops, which will mean de-facto war between nuclear powers one of which (Russia) have just unleashed a nuclear weapon on the battlefield. You don't take a sausage to a gun fight, NATO will for the first time in its history be armed with active nuclear weapons and be willing to respond in kind should the Russian's fire another one.

At which point, you'll likely see the paranoid Russian doctrine come into play which will be to strike in the face of imminent danger. With the state of the two respective armies, that'd be justified as without nuclear weapons the Russian army is simply a shit load of artillery and totally useless against NATO's (America's) insane air power.

If it went the other way, it'd be a huge capitulation and, as someone else said, tacit acknowledgement that "tactical nuclear bombs" are fair game in combat.

Ultimately, deploying any form of atomics would have catastrophic consequences for all of us (especially Russia).
 
TMDaines said:
Click to expand...


Good. Make him feed his own eggs (preferably scrambled) and the extra sausage going with those.

I watched news earlier about the UN Secretary General meeting Putn and Lavrov today. What is the guy up to with such a visit if not killing further credibility regarding the United Nations? Macron and Nehammer already made it clear that Putin doesn't have a sound mind at all now.
 
stefan92 said:
It was a diplomatic failure as it actually fuels existing skepticism against Ukraine.

Nonetheless it looks like things are (still very slowly) moving in the right direction: https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deut...iefern-a-c53fa755-c0d1-4b59-b8a6-7d2dbaaebd74

Germany seems to prepare a delivery of Gepard air defence tanks (armament is a radar controlled twin 35mm autocannon). It should be quite effective against low flying targets, and it is an interesting choice as this is really one of the more complicated systems - so even if it should be delivered quite fast, it won't appear on the battlefield immediately.
Click to expand...

I wonder if all this new help would happen without the pressure applied
 
4bars said:
I wonder if all this new help would happen without the pressure applied
Click to expand...
Probably not, but I can just repeat that the pressure applied on Scholz was at least as much internal German pressure as it was coming from the outside. He (and the SPD) were chosen by Greens/FDP because they appeared to be able to create a working government, while the CDU didn't appear to be in that state after the election. If there would be enough trouble about Ukraine Greens/FDP could replace SPD with the now much more solid looking CDU as their partner (and therefore replace Scholz) and it was obvious during the last weeks that he hasn't got any control about them, so this might have become a real option.

Outside pressure definitely helped, but to me this actually seems to be more important to slowly changing policies.
 
stefan92 said:
Probably not, but I can just repeat that the pressure applied on Scholz was at least as much internal German pressure as it was coming from the outside. He (and the SPD) were chosen by Greens/FDP because they appeared to be able to create a working government, while the CDU didn't appear to be in that state after the election. If there would be enough trouble about Ukraine Greens/FDP could replace SPD with the now much more solid looking CDU as their partner (and therefore replace Scholz) and it was obvious during the last weeks that he hasn't got any control about them, so this might have become a real option.

Outside pressure definitely helped, but to me this actually seems to be more important to slowly changing policies.
Click to expand...

Ukraine cant afford slowly my friend
 
You must log in or register to reply here.