Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:53 pm
Phew. The nuke thing, though. We’re probably sitting at a 25% chance of Russians using battlefield nukes. They’ve already demonstrated a willingness to drop white phosphorous on population centers, not to mention destroying everything in sight with artillery and various other weapons systems. They even destroy UN heritage sights as if they were on a jihad against infidels, so their regard for non-Russians is hovering around zero.
- Doc
Hey Doc,
Here is another viewpoint concerning the probability of tactical nuclear weapons use by the Russians. As mentioned upthread, Putin has been warned publicly, and more specifically privately, against using nuclear weapons of any kind. Unlike his nonspecific threats to the West, the minimum consequences have been laid out to Putin in detail.
Putin, or at least Putin's generals (what's left of them), understand that the (unofficially stated) consequences of the use of nuclear weapons would be the near-immediate destruction of all Russian theater command and control centers, as well as probable destruction of Russia's Black Sea Fleet. This would be carried out largely or exclusively by US forces, using conventional warhead cruise missiles launched from outside of Ukraine. This response would essentially slice the head off of the snake and leave Putin with no way to defend occupied territories in mainland Ukraine, or even Crimea.
Putin knows, or his generals should tell him, that if this happens the war in Ukraine is effectively over. The Russian army has no experienced NCO corps to speak of. It is essentially senior field-grade officers, regular army privates, and cucumbers. With the generals and colonels essentially removed from the fight, nothing happens. The ultimate consequence of using tactical nukes by Russia is that Ukraine will have won. The problem will be taking care of the ill-equipped, hungry, and cold Russian troops who surrender in the field.
One must consider here that US intel regarding the battle space is superior to that of Russia. The US knows what is where and has experienced war planners that are fully engaged and have done a great job so far in working with Ukrainian forces. There is no evidence that Russia even has dedicated strategists or competent war planners in the fight. It appears that Putin and his generals are making this up as they go along.
In fact, there are credible reports that Putin has personally made battlefield decisions over the heads of his generals and against their advice. This is what Hitler sometimes did in WW II and we know how that turned out. (When Churchill was presented with a plan to take out Hitler, Churchill declined, stating that Hitler was so bad as a battlefield strategist that he was more valuable to the allies alive than dead.)
Another factor that has not been mentioned is that China and India have both publicly advised Putin to end the war in Ukraine
*. Other
unofficial reports indicate that China and India have essentially given Putin a few months (two months?) to withdraw from Ukraine. If Russia has not done so by then, India and China have threatened to join the international community in economic sanctions against Russia - (game over). Use of tactical nukes would be a public opinion disaster and would certainly result in China and India joining international sanctions against Russia.
How would the Russians even use tactical nuclear weapons to any advantage? The ground forces of the two sides are too tightly positioned. As you probably remember, low-yield tactical nukes were originally developed by the US as a means to defend against a Warsaw Pact tank invasion of western Europe through the Fulda gap. They would have been effective in stopping a massed armor attack over open ground in sparsely populated areas. Nukes would only be useful as terror weapons in Ukraine. With war crime trials already on the horizon for Putin and many in the Russian military, the use of nukes would only make things far worse. I just can't see any reason to use them.
IMHO, the chances of nuclear weapon use by Putin are on the order of 5% and diminishing rapidly, especially with the growing nationwide protests against the mobilization and Putin's war in general. In any case, if Russia does not have the ground troops and equipment required to take and hold the territory cleared by battlefield nukes then what's the point?
_____________________
*https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinio ... 00378.html