Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
A brief piece on the growing possibility of Russia using a battlefield tactical nuke in Ukraine.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ons-in-ukraine
The gist of it is, Russia probably won't use nuclear weapons to try to win the war (i.e. defeat the UAF)- although that's still a possible Russian goal. Instead, Putin might employ tac-nukes in an effort to quickly "freeze the conflict", and secure a stronger position at the bargaining table.
- |
I highly doubt Russia will use a nuke. The UN and international community would come down on Putin so hard that it would destroy Russia as a member of the international community. In addition, any strike on Ukrainian soil becomes Russia's problem if she wins. The fallout would also be an issue and Russia's troops don't even have basic kit let alone MOPP gear.
That being said, I worry more about a non-persistent chemical weapon. The effects of such a weapon would be gone in just a few days and chemical defense is much easier to deal with than radiological defense. There are also indicators in the international community based on their use in places like Syria that the UN members consider them "less of a sin" than a nuke. Putler also has a history with them. During the Second Battle Of Grozny, he asked about using Chemical Weapons but was told the "political fallout" would be too great. So the Chechens got free cremations instead. Since Russia is already under sanctions, the use of a non-persistent agent really wouldn't harm her economically. I don't think that they would have much impact tactically, but I see them used as a "terror tool" to break Ukrainian civilian morale.