Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bill Baskin's avatar

Same train of thoughts here, T.L.

I believe that when a leader of people put their people first, most every decision is legitimate.

streamfortyseven's avatar

the main thing stopping Putin from using tactical nukes in Ukraine - or now, Kursk Oblast - is that Ukrainian troops aren't concentrated enough to make their use make sense, militarily. The kill circle on a tactical nuke is pretty small, they'd be useful against large concentrations of troops and the Ukrainians tend to spread out. The other thing is that tactical nukes aren't a local weapon with effects limited to one location, they create radioactive fallout clouds which do get up quite high - about 20,000 feet - and travel long distances . The prevailing winds in Ukraine go from west to east, so the fallout is going to go straight east, more or less, and so there's the chance that Russian agricultural lands around Volgograd might get a good shot of it - and some of it could travel as far as China. The Chinese already import 80% of their food, they don't want to risk making that 100% - and the Chinese have communicated to Putin that they don't want this. So there's no tactical advantage and lots of liabilities. The threat of nuke use has been very effective in limiting Western aid to Ukraine and its areas of allowed usage, and so the threats will continue - that's the primary actual use of these weapons in this war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiM-RzPHyGs

If strategic weapons were used in Ukraine, say a 1 MT ground burst on Kiev to take out command and control structures, that would produce a much larger fallout cloud, contaminating lots of Russian agricultural lands - and posing a significant threat all the way to China. See this for details - https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/effects/

11 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?