How would a tactical nuke end the war in Ukraine?
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
I think it was just as simple as Rob Lee suggests. Prigozhin was about to loose control over Wagner and he decided to gamble and do something about it.
Because there would be no more Ukraine?
It would kick off something bigger though for sure.
Now we know what they did yesterday. Holding against invisible enemys like always
I wonder if these guys has engaded in any real battles yet? I know they where fighting street signs and traffic lights in Mariupol but that seems to be it.
So it wouldn't end the war it would just get bigger.
It would end Ukraine's ability to fight. What Nato does next is what will determine if it escalates. If Russia separates Wagner from the MOD so they are in effect a stand alone organization. A terrorist organization. And then its them who sets off the nukes. Then the question is. Who do Nato attack? Russia or Wagner? On what basis can they attack Russia? So it will have to be Wagner. 20,000 convicts will probably be bombed to sht. Probably give up after half a day. 2 thousand killed. The rest just go back to prison. Ukraine fkd, war ended, Putin in power. Job done
Or… a man, in a country where strength is everything and who has the largest private army in the world, was told he was to sign over everything to the control of the MoD and his greatest rival. Hence he had to go all in, or give away everything he had.
Putin, wanting to control the situation, offered Prigozhin everything to stop bloodshed. For now. I think Putin needs to work out how this happened and where everyone’s loyalties lie before taking any further action.
The only concrete takeaway is that Putin and the MOD appear weak, which is a huge problem in a mafia state. To suggest that was part of the plan, feels nonsensical and is probably what Russia wants the world to think.
A single tactical won't end Ukraine's ability to fight.
That's not at all how it would go. It's not like Russia can just say "wasn't us" if a tactical nuke is used on the battlefield. Wagner doesn't have their own nukes, obviously. If a nuke goes off in Ukraine, the next day at a minimum NATO is bombing any Russian forces in Ukraine to oblivion. If it hits a city, or is a regular nuke, then the response is much worse.
And what will happen in Belarus now? Such a failed state and I wish Belarusians much better than this mess
What is a “tactical nuke”? It’s either a nuke or it isn’t. What am I missing here?
So Russia would give Wagner the launch codes?
I think this is the answer to the question, as in, I don’t think there are. If Putin wanted to respond in strength he’d have had to withdraw soldiers from Ukraine. Which would show his hand and that he’s committed pretty much everything he has to the Ukraine front, despite trying to maintain that this is all just a little bit of Russias strength.
It would have ended up making him and Russia look weaker. Plus given how shit Russia have been in the war, it wouldn’t have been guaranteed they’d win. They’d just have ended up transferring the stalemate from the Ukraine front to their own civil war.
Smaller yield nuclear weapons designed to be used on a battlefield when you might have friendly forces nearby. Strategic nuclear weapons are the city killers that you're probably thinking of.
Tactical nuke - smaller power, used mainly to target enemy forces, theoretically can happen at the battlefield and close to the front line, it was never used in history
Strategic nuke - large power, dropped behind enemy lines on cities and factories, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There is no official distinction between the two. No one has defined where one ends and the other starts. It's simply a term invented by trigger happy nuke holders to make it more palpable to throw one. For it to mean anything there would at the very least need to be agreement between all the nuclear countries of this world as to what constitutes what. I haven't seen it.
So this watered down version doesn’t flatten entire cities? Wouldn’t it still be considered as using “nuclear weapons” and therefore justify whatever the response from around the world?
Ah cheers! Has such a watered down version ever been used anywhere? We’re the bombs used in Syria a further watered down variant of one such weapon?
I see @Red Star One said it hasn’t been used - I’m guessing the caveat of “that the world knows of” applies here?
Last edited:
No nuke has ever been used in real war since 1945.
One tactical nuke doesn’t feck Ukraine though.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually small bombs, compared to current ones. There are tactical nukes that have higher yields than those, albeit some are very small (I think the smallest are 0.3kton, while Hiroshima/Nagasaki were 15-20kton). The strategic ones I believe are considered to be those that are over 100kton, and whom are not supposed to be used primarily against armies, but more as weapons of Mass destructions.
I think this doesn't get mentioned enough. We've seen Wagner getting huge support from the population, we've seen indication that huge parts of the military turned on Putin and supported Wagner, we've seen a relatively small private army almost conquering the capital. All this made Putin look very weak and maybe some powerful people realized that his chokehold isn't so tight after all. It signaled that Putin is losing control of the demons he summoned and vulnerable.
If some of the tactical nukes are extremely small and wouldn't be levelling a city, why wouldn't you just use a conventional bomb? Aren't some of the huge bombs used in fairly recent years like the MOAB similar in capability? I don't know much about this, obviously.
I just have to wonder about how much Lukashenko is currently plotting...
He got himself some nukes.
He has now extremely strong ties to the "army" that almost conquered Moscow and that is in charge of Russia's African interests.
Is he finally getting ahead of Putin in their eternal power struggle?
I think MOAB was around 0.1kton, so 3-4 times smaller than the smallest tactical nukes.
And you are right, it is preferable to use very destructive thermobaric bombs like that one to tactical nukes. It is not nice to open the Pandora box, cause once you start using tactical nukes, it is very easy to see scenarios where you gradually increase the yield, until finally countries attack each other with strategic ones. The end.
From what I know, only the very smallest tactical nukes are equalled in power by thermobaric bombs such as the MOAB. But small tactical nukes can be carried and fired by a foot soldier while a MOAB is far too large for that.
In essence, there's still no equivalent to even small nukes. Even a tactical one is absolutely terrible and causes a humanitarian crisis.
In fact, it's the plotline of the movie Threads.
The Soviets and US exchange tactical nukes before the actual nuclear war breaks out a few days later.
Ukraine is currently intercepting around 90% of the missiles fired at them so it would first of all be very hard for Russia or Wagner to even deliver the warhead to Ukraine. Second, even if they would be able to get a nuclear warhead through, a single one would do very little damage to Ukrainian forces, they are spread out over a massive area and it would take hundreds of tactical nukes to end their ability to fight.
Tactical nukes can be artillery shells which are not intercepted at Ukraine's frontlines.
- There is absolutely no chance that Moscow has given up control of nuclear weapons.
- He is thick with the ex-Wagner chef, not with Wagner. Large numbers of them will clearly disapprove of yesterday's actions.
- Lukashenko is not plotting. He is a puppet. And being obedient is the only thing that keeps him alive.
What a weird turn of events this was. The fragility of Putin's regime on full display to the world.
It's 20 years since both the US and Russia reported that their last nuclear artillery shells had been destroyed. After the fall of the Soviet Union both countries agreed to destroy all of their remaining nuclear artillery munitions.
It's of course Russia we are talking about here so no way of knowing if it's true or not but officially they don't have those munitions in stock any more.
The whole reason for the initial decision to go for Moscow and convincing his troops to follow him in such a dangerous plan, only to then, on the face of it climb down from a position of some strength does seem to be rather strange.
But I am sure that there was a great deal behind that we don't yet know about.
And what was in it for the leader of Belarus.
Is he really such an ally of Putin.
And does he see that Putin is nothing like as strong as he was.
And has he given the Wagner leader exile status in Belarus so he can build an alliance with him to eventually topple Putin.
So many questions with little likelihood of any credible answers.
What a show. Gonna have to revisit it.
Rather grim one
Certainly not sugar-coated.
I think Occam's razor is the way to go in this case. There is no 4d chess behind all this. Prigozhin's conflict with the MoD escalated and he knew his days were numbered. But he also knew better than most in which terrible state the military is - after all that's what he was criticizing all the time. He saw only one way out and that was the coup.
Putin didn't saw it coming and was completely caught off guard how easily Wagner made it to the capital - as he was surprised all the time since the information he receives is altered completely by all the lying and buckling he encourages.
Lukaschenko was threatened himself because if Putin falls, chances are there'll be a rebellion in his country as well. There even had been the first calls to overthrow his regime. In the end, all three saved themselves from graver consequences (or probably only rescheduled them to a later point in time). One way or another, there's only one winner of this and that's Ukraine.