SUMMARY: Russia has a 10:1 advantage over the US in nonstrategic (i.e., low-yield) nuclear weapons—aka tactical or battlefield nukes.
Because the disparity between Russian and U.S. tactical nuclear weapons is so large, Moscow may perceive a NATO nuclear response to lack credibility.
Moscow’s advantage in nonstrategic nuclear weapons could encourage greater risk-taking now and in the future, deeply undermining European security.
Small nuclear weapons are a much better weapon of terror and intimidation. They can be as a part of a last-ditch effort by Mr. Putin to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive, by threatening to make elements of Ukraine uninhabitable.
The situations of how the Russians may do it differ broadly. The targets might be a Ukrainian navy base or a small metropolis. How much destruction — and lingering radiation — would result depends on components, together with the scale of the weapon and the winds. However, even a small nuclear explosion might trigger hundreds of deaths and render a base or a downtown space uninhabitable for years.
Nonetheless, the dangers for Mr. Putin might simply outweigh any gains. His nation might change into a global pariah, and the West would attempt to capitalize on the detonation to attempt to carry China and India, and others who are shopping for Russian oil and fuel, into sanctions they’ve resisted.
Then there may be the issue of prevailing winds: The radiation launched by Russian weapons might simply blow again into Russian territory.
- - - - - - - -
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/26/europe/ru...index.html
EXCERPTS: . . . Tactical warheads refer to ones designed for use in a limited battlefield, say to destroy a column of tanks or an aircraft carrier battle group if used at sea. These warheads, with explosive yields of 10 to 100 kilotons of dynamite, are also called “low yield.”
In contrast, Russia’s most powerful strategic nuclear warheads have explosive yields of 500 to 800 kilotons and are designed to destroy entire cities – and then some.
The reference to “low yield” for tactical weapons is somewhat misleading as explosive yields of 10 to 100 kilotons of TNT are still enough to cause major destruction – as the world discovered in 1945 when the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.
Those bombs were the equivalent about 15 and 21 kilotons of dynamite, respectively – within the ballpark of Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons.
[...] Others, including former US Defense Secretary James Mattis, say there’s no difference at all between the two types.
“I don’t think there is any such thing as a ‘tactical nuclear weapon.’ Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game-changer,” he told a congressional hearing in 2018.
Russia (and before it, the Soviet Union) has built and maintained a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons.
The initial thinking was that using a nuke on a battlefield gave leaders an option to make a decisive strike that could stave off defeat without resorting to the use of their biggest nuclear weapons, which after a counterattack would bring a “civilization-ending nuclear exchange,” according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
On its website, the organization calls that thinking “flawed and dangerous.”
“Tactical nuclear weapons … introduce greater ambiguity, raising the possibility that a country might think it could get away with a limited attack,” the organization said. Some analysis supports that theory... (MORE - missing details)
Because the disparity between Russian and U.S. tactical nuclear weapons is so large, Moscow may perceive a NATO nuclear response to lack credibility.
Moscow’s advantage in nonstrategic nuclear weapons could encourage greater risk-taking now and in the future, deeply undermining European security.
Small nuclear weapons are a much better weapon of terror and intimidation. They can be as a part of a last-ditch effort by Mr. Putin to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive, by threatening to make elements of Ukraine uninhabitable.
The situations of how the Russians may do it differ broadly. The targets might be a Ukrainian navy base or a small metropolis. How much destruction — and lingering radiation — would result depends on components, together with the scale of the weapon and the winds. However, even a small nuclear explosion might trigger hundreds of deaths and render a base or a downtown space uninhabitable for years.
Nonetheless, the dangers for Mr. Putin might simply outweigh any gains. His nation might change into a global pariah, and the West would attempt to capitalize on the detonation to attempt to carry China and India, and others who are shopping for Russian oil and fuel, into sanctions they’ve resisted.
Then there may be the issue of prevailing winds: The radiation launched by Russian weapons might simply blow again into Russian territory.
- - - - - - - -
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/26/europe/ru...index.html
EXCERPTS: . . . Tactical warheads refer to ones designed for use in a limited battlefield, say to destroy a column of tanks or an aircraft carrier battle group if used at sea. These warheads, with explosive yields of 10 to 100 kilotons of dynamite, are also called “low yield.”
In contrast, Russia’s most powerful strategic nuclear warheads have explosive yields of 500 to 800 kilotons and are designed to destroy entire cities – and then some.
The reference to “low yield” for tactical weapons is somewhat misleading as explosive yields of 10 to 100 kilotons of TNT are still enough to cause major destruction – as the world discovered in 1945 when the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.
Those bombs were the equivalent about 15 and 21 kilotons of dynamite, respectively – within the ballpark of Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons.
[...] Others, including former US Defense Secretary James Mattis, say there’s no difference at all between the two types.
“I don’t think there is any such thing as a ‘tactical nuclear weapon.’ Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game-changer,” he told a congressional hearing in 2018.
Russia (and before it, the Soviet Union) has built and maintained a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons.
The initial thinking was that using a nuke on a battlefield gave leaders an option to make a decisive strike that could stave off defeat without resorting to the use of their biggest nuclear weapons, which after a counterattack would bring a “civilization-ending nuclear exchange,” according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
On its website, the organization calls that thinking “flawed and dangerous.”
“Tactical nuclear weapons … introduce greater ambiguity, raising the possibility that a country might think it could get away with a limited attack,” the organization said. Some analysis supports that theory... (MORE - missing details)