Every news station is talking about this possibility now. But I cannot find a single analysis of how likely it is.
And how likely it is seems to depend on the effect these weapons would have on the situation on the battlefield.
But I cannot find any info on this.
There’s only vague assertions by the west about what will happen and that is intentional.
It’s likely to lead to a heavy retaliatory strike against Russia, I believe one of the options floated was effectively sinking the entire Black Sea fleet if Russia uses a nuke.
Keep in mind that any use of a nuke effectively necessitates a large reaction physically to try and avoid nuclear proliferation and use going wild.
Seems more likely that sinking their fleet would cause them to use more and bigger nukes, and/or to sink every fleet of ours within missile range.
There’s no other choice, doing nothing signals to Russia that they can use nukes without repercussions and signals to the rest of the nuclear armed countries they can do the same.
You also assume Russia is capable of a strike against US fleets in any decent capacity when they cannot even capture a city less then 300km from there border and lost there Black Sea flag ship to a country with no functional navy.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/23/little-military-sen...
https://thezvi.substack.com/p/ukraine-post-12
https://www.iswresearch.org/2022/09/russian-offensive-campai...
The TL;DR is that most experts don't think Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons, but there's still a substantial non-zero chance. 10%? 25%? Much higher than anyone would like, that's for sure, and dependent on factors that are out of control of anybody but the Russian government and military. I have not found any sources saying the opposite, though some have higher degrees of confidence than others. The consensus appears to be that this sense of uncertainty is being created by Russia on purpose, and therefore, that it's probably (but not guaranteed to be) a bluff.
I have also seen very mixed opinions on whether Russia's tactical nuclear weapons are in suitable condition for use. But I think it is best to assume they are.
The odds of Russia intentionally using strategic nuclear weapons, the kind you would target at foreign cities across continents or oceans from you, remain nearly zero. Unlike tactical nuclear weapons, which have theoretical uses in ensuring one wins a conflict, strategic nuclear weapons remain a guarantee of mutual and probably worldwide destruction with no purpose except to deter would-be attackers. The only time I can see even the Putin regime considering the use of such a weapon would be a full-scale, boots on the ground invasion of the Russian homeland (not Crimea or Donbas or other annexed territories).
Edit: Another source pointed out elsewhere - https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/russias-plan-to-stay-in-th... - seems reasonable. I am not 100% sure on its credibility but it aligns broadly. (Listen from about 5 minutes to about 14 minutes in.)
I've been thinking about this possibility since the start of the Ukraine War:
* Putin fires tactical atomic weapon at some empty plot of Ukrainian land, and announces it as a "demonstration" of Russian might.
* The weapon is a dud.
I'm not sure whether this outcome might not be worse in the long run, in terms of geopolitical stability, than if the weapon performs as expected!
I mean, if you're NATO and you see that... hard to imagine you don't take the invitation and just crush the Russian military into so much melted shrapnel. Every analysis I've seen says that if NATO gets involved, and nukes are otherwise off the table (which in this case they would be, at least for long enough for it not to matter), the thing ends with total NATO victory in very little time. And the attempted use of tactical nukes is the one thing almost guaranteed to step up NATO involvement.
But maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.
In terms of geopolitical stability, it would make Russia difficult to take seriously as a nuclear power. I don't think it says much about other nuclear states, like the US or China, who are almost certainly not paper tigers like Russia would have proven to be.
Otherwise, it is MAD.
That is true. However, what's missing from this assessment in my view is the difference between strategic nukes (the kind that level a city) and tactical nukes (the kind you use for specific tactical goals, and the only kind being discussed as likely to be used here).
Russia has enough working strategic nukes that any kind of direct offense against the Russian homeland is always gonna be off the table. That is totally true. But nobody, including Russia, has suggested those are going to be used at all.
Rather, what is contemplated is using a tactical nuclear weapon to make a statement or accomplish a specific wartime goal. With regards to tactical nukes specifically, I think this claim:
> 5% still working is enough to deter NATO from directly attacking Russian forces.
is possibly not true. I think NATO might be willing to engage Russia conventionally if it is clear their tactical nukes don't work - and maybe even if they do work, because that may be among what has been threatened as a response to the use of a tactical nuke.
If Russia threatens to bomb Warsaw or DC, the situation changes again. But nobody has put that on the table... yet.
I'm not sure how that plays now based on disarmament and technological updates.
The only difference is that the US uses DU regularly so we think of it as normal instead of a nuclear weapon on par with a tactical nuke in terms of long term damage.
We don't want to imagine it, that's as simple as that, just like we didn't want to imagine the invasion in the first place. "it's too dumb nobody would do that" is what most people were saying, even like a week before the invasion only the US were seriously warning people.
War on the Rocks[1] generally, and any content featuring Michael Kofman[2] specifically, are great sources on the conflict generally. The ~weekly podcast is great.
Just about every twit from McFaul about Russia is so deranged, that I'm not even surprised anymore, I read him as a good comedy.
McFaul is considered an expert on Russia, he even lived here for some time. Still, when he says something about the way we live or the way we think, or anything like that, it's usually so delusional, that I can't understand what was he doing here for two years. Has he even stepped outside of US embassy a single time?..
But on the other hand, I think it's beneficial for us, that all the West lives in a dream that they know everything about Russia.
Why don’t you check out the source I mentioned in my original comment - any recent WotR or Geopolitics Decanted podcast with Michael Kofman, Director of Russia Studies at CNA. Then please do come back and let us know whether you think he’s full of shit. Will be waiting for your considered thoughts with baited breath.
> with bated breath: in a nervous and excited state anticipating what will happen
> bate: To flap the wings wildly or frantically - used of a falcon; To lessen the force or intensity of; moderate.To take away; subtract.
Say Putin nukes Ukraine (or fires a "demonstration" shot). If NATO stood down and just abandoned Ukraine as a response, or had them do appeasement style relinquishment of territory, or lifted sanctions, what stops Putin from pulling the nukes out the next time he wants something?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4
"Will you press the button if they invade West Berlin?"
Article 5
And it considers Ukraine ethnically related. Many Russians have relatives in Kiev etc.. Using nukes on Ukraine would be huge political problem.
It is FUD spread by trigger happy westerners, who want to normalize nuclear war!