• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tactical Nukes

Rich2018 said:
The Warsaw Pact (WP) and NATO in Europe were continuous land blocks (bodies of water excepted)

But membership of either alliance did not imply/exclude those countries from the USA's or USSR's sphere of influence
The USA deemed that Cuba was in it's sphere of influence, in 1961.
Click to expand...

Your argument is a construct of want not reason. A fail.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Which is exactly why our very wise founding fathers didn’t ever want America entangled in other country’s affairs. We have to respond because we chose to involve ourselves despite no obvious American interests being involved
Click to expand...
Look beyond the tip of your nose. You think there are no obvious American interest? Look at our economy.

I can think of one founding father that warned us about foreign entanglements, but that was years after France and Spain helped us win the Revolutionary War.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Ukraine couldn’t sustain the war if they weren’t a satrap of the US. Like literally their entire civil service payroll is being funded by the US. They couldn’t pay government employees, let alone the military, without American money.
Click to expand...
Could you get your ahistorical and irrelevant references to Achaemenid Persia at least right, spellingwise?

It's satrapy.
 
Getting back to the thread topic, let's try a rather frightful thought experiment. In a hypothetical escalation the Russian Federation (RF) decides to use five tactical nuclear weapons of 20 kilotons each to destroy a growing concentration of Ukrainian troops and equipment threatening to take a major military objective, let's say the river-port city of Kherson. 18,000 Ukrainian troops and 9000 civilians are immediately killed in the strikes northwest of the city. Many more are injured and about 30,000 more are expected to die of wounds or radiation poisoning.

What does the West do in reponse to such an attack? Counter-strike with nuclear weapons into RF occupied Ukraine? Counter-strike with nuclear weapons into Russian Federation territory proper? Counter-strike against Russian naval assets at sea or in coastal waters in order to destroy as much of the RF navy as possible, using both nuclear and conventional munitions? Massive conventional missile and air power counter-strikes against RF forces in Ukraine? Conventional counter-strikes against RF territory proper?

What should be the appropriate response by the West to the Russian Federation using five tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine?

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
Getting back to the thread topic, let's try a rather frightful thought experiment. In a hypothetical escalation the Russian Federation (RF) decides to use five tactical nuclear weapons of 20 kilotons each to destroy a growing concentration of Ukrainian troops and equipment threatening to take a major military objective, let's say the river-port city of Kherson. 18,000 Ukrainian troops and 9000 civilians are immediately killed in the strikes northwest of the city. Many more are injured and about 30,000 more are expected to die of wounds or radiation poisoning.

What does the West do in reponse to such an attack? Counter-strike with nuclear weapons into RF occupied Ukraine? Counter-strike with nuclear weapons into Russian Federation territory proper? Counter-strike against Russian naval assets at sea or in coastal waters in order to destroy as much of the RF navy as possible, using both nuclear and conventional munitions? Massive conventional missile and air power counter-strikes against RF forces in Ukraine? Conventional counter-strikes against RF territory proper?

What should be the appropriate response by the West to the Russian Federation using five tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine?

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Well, first off, force concentration isn't really how modern warfare is done. With advances in communication and mobilization, forces are a lot more dispersed than they used to be in the past.... so I don't think the military casualties would be anywhere near the levels you anticipate. A strike on a city, however, would inflict significant civilian casualties. I think the video footage from that alone would compel the world to react in horror. It will be beyond the worst your imagination can comprehend. Nobody will have seen anything like that kind of aftermath in 77 years.

So there will be a visceral reaction on the part of the West to stay as far away from responding with any kind of nuclear reaction.... but that will infinitely increase the pressure to respond on every other front.
 
Cordelier said:
Well, first off, force concentration isn't really how modern warfare is done. With advances in communication and mobilization, forces are a lot more dispersed than they used to be in the past.... so I don't think the military casualties would be anywhere near the levels you anticipate. A strike on a city, however, would inflict significant civilian casualties. I think the video footage from that alone would compel the world to react in horror. It will be beyond the worst your imagination can comprehend. Nobody will have seen anything like that kind of aftermath in 77 years.

So there will be a visceral reaction on the part of the West to stay as far away from responding with any kind of nuclear reaction.... but that will infinitely increase the pressure to respond on every other front.
Click to expand...
Cordelier:

The five hypothetical tactical nuclear weapons were targeting staging areas and supply hubs, not troops in combat. The attack was on Ukrainian rear areas, not the front lines. Most of the military deaths are tail-military, not teeth-military.

So what would be the non-nuclear response you envision happening be? Where would such attacks be directed? (Occupied Ukraine or the Russian Federation)?

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Cordelier:

The five hypothetical tactical nuclear weapons were targeting staging areas and supply hubs, not troops in combat. The attack was on Ukrainian rear areas, not the front lines. Most of the military deaths are tail-military, not teeth-military.

So what would be the non-nuclear response you envision happening be? Where would such attacks be directed? (Occupied Ukraine or the Russian Federation)?

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

I think there would be an instantaneous, world-wide call to institute a no-fly zone in order to ensure a massive influx of humanitarian aid to the affected areas.

The world isn't going to be prepared for what it finds there. If camera crews had been able to film the immediate aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nobody today would be lightly talking about nuclear weapons being just like conventional bombs on steroids. I once met a survivor of Nagasaki - he was seven years old at the time of the explosion. The stories he told me still make my skin crawl.... so I can't imagine what actually watching footage of the death throes of one of the "Bee people" would do.
 
Cordelier said:
I think there would be an instantaneous, world-wide call to institute a no-fly zone in order to ensure a massive influx of humanitarian aid to the affected areas.

The world isn't going to be prepared for what it finds there. If camera crews had been able to film the immediate aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nobody today would be lightly talking about nuclear weapons being just like conventional bombs on steroids. I once met a survivor of Nagasaki - he was seven years old at the time of the explosion. The stories he told me still make my skin crawl.... so I can't imagine what actually watching footage of the death throes of one of the "Bee people" would do.
Click to expand...
Cordelire:

You make good points but:



Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.
 
Loulit01 said:
Putin can order the use of a tactical nuke. These days I'm not sure that order would be carried out.
Click to expand...

And that has to be a real concern to him.

There were lots documents found after the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 that indicated that Saddam had ordered chemical strikes on US forces. However, for various reasons none of them seem to have happened. Some of the units ordered had no such weapons, and others did not even exist but were just the core members of what would be a Chemical Weapons Unit. And others apparently simply ignored the orders, buried their weapons and surrendered to US forces. A lot of the early recoveries of chemical weapons in 2003-2004 were the ones that surrendering forces themselves buried because they knew from 1990-1991 that US response against them would have been swift and decisive if they had launched. That is why chemical mortar and artillery rounds were found all over the country. However, many of them were not even in working condition (which the forces that had them knew), because by the time their reports of their condition got to the top levels, they had been changed form "inoperable" to "perfectly functional".

Nobody told Saddam news he did not want to hear.

One of the biggest problems in the Saddam Regime is that neither he nor his highest members knew the real state of his own military. They would get passed up reports from their Generals and top administrators giving them glowing reports on their readiness and equipment status. But the thing is, a hell of a lot of them were outright lies because reporting anything else other than everything is fine to Saddam was often resolved with a bullet in the back of the head. This is actually what many actually point to as the key failure in UK-US chemical weapon analysis prior to the war. And the rapid collapse of their military in both 1991 and 2003.

The source of the UK-US intel was at the highest levels of the Iraqi government, believed to have been a senior minister in their military. And they are likely the one that passed reports to the top minister and then went to Saddam. But the reports by that time were so completely false that they were largely meaningless. They were reporting "Fighter Wings" that were active that literally had been buried in the sand in 1991 and never dug out again. With no pilots at all, the Generals lower down were just collecting their pay and banking it themselves. It is fascinating that the US knew far more about the status of Iraqi forces than the top leadership of Iraq themselves knew.

And I think Putin got himself into the same situation. His top leadership was feeding him years of doctored reports, full of false readiness reports and training that was either never done or half-arsed if best when it was. And a lot of his top levels of leadership might very well balk in the event they were ordered to launch a nuclear strike that was not in response to a nuclear strike against them.

Now, if Russian forces are nuked somewhere, I have little doubt that they would not hesitate to respond in kind if ordered. But I think a lot would refuse if ordered to conduct a first strike attack. Especially as most of the senior leadership is old enough to remember when they were once all part of the Soviet Union, and were for decades "brothers in arms".
 
Evilroddy said:
Getting back to the thread topic, let's try a rather frightful thought experiment. In a hypothetical escalation the Russian Federation (RF) decides to use five tactical nuclear weapons of 20 kilotons each to destroy a growing concentration of Ukrainian troops and equipment threatening to take a major military objective, let's say the river-port city of Kherson. 18,000 Ukrainian troops and 9000 civilians are immediately killed in the strikes northwest of the city. Many more are injured and about 30,000 more are expected to die of wounds or radiation poisoning.

What does the West do in reponse to such an attack? Counter-strike with nuclear weapons into RF occupied Ukraine? Counter-strike with nuclear weapons into Russian Federation territory proper? Counter-strike against Russian naval assets at sea or in coastal waters in order to destroy as much of the RF navy as possible, using both nuclear and conventional munitions? Massive conventional missile and air power counter-strikes against RF forces in Ukraine? Conventional counter-strikes against RF territory proper?

What should be the appropriate response by the West to the Russian Federation using five tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine?

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

In that scenario, NATO would launch an overwhelming (conventional) air campaign against all Russian targets in the Ukraine, effectively ending the war in the Ukraine's favor.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Tactical nukes are those that are small enough to have an actual use on a battlefield. In general, any warheads that are rated at 50 kilotons or less.
Click to expand...

15 kilotons at Hiroshima and 25 kilotons at Nagasaki were used, for reference.
 
Rich2018 said:
In that scenario, NATO would launch an overwhelming (conventional) air campaign against all Russian targets in the Ukraine, effectively ending the war in the Ukraine's favor.
Click to expand...

Oh, Nato would would they? LOL
And you know this how?
 
noonereal said:
15 kilotons at Hiroshima and 25 kilotons at Nagasaki were used, for reference.
Click to expand...

I am aware of how large they were. Today, those would be tactical weapons. Enough to destroy roughly a Division sized opening in a front line area, a major air base, or a large operational material dump. And in reality, that is what the targets of both of those attacks were. Hiroshima was the main staging base and supply dump for the area of the main island that was going to be hit first. Nagasaki was one of their largest naval bases and the home for most of their submarine forces.

That is what "tactical" means, of actual use on a battlefield. That can be fired from assets that can be used and operated from a battlefield area. Bombs from fighters or fighter-bombers, artillery, short range ground missiles, things like that. Even recoilless rifles. Not the massive "city killers" that are either on large intercontinental bombers, or on silo based missiles.

The last such missile the US deployed was the Pershing II, which were all eliminated in 1991 thanks to the 1988 INF treaty. They were armed with the W85 "dial a yield" warhead, capable of delivering from 5 to 60 kilotons up to 1,100 miles away. Most believe that the warheads if ever used would have been set to the 10-20 kt range, because the targets would have likely been close to civilian populations and they would have wanted to reduce the risk to them.

After the Pershing II missiles were broken up, they were converted to B61 gravity bombs. Which is the bomb that can be carried on more US-NATO aircraft than any other. Including the B-1, B-2, B-52, F/A-18. A-6 (retired), F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-35. It is also rated to be used by the Tornado aircraft of the UK, Italy, and Germany.
 
Rich2018 said:
In that scenario, NATO would launch an overwhelming (conventional) air campaign against all Russian targets in the Ukraine, effectively ending the war in the Ukraine's favor.
Click to expand...
Rich2018:

NATO would suffer huge losses. The Russians have nuclear tipped SAMs and nuclear tipped air-to-air missiles which could devastate NATO air power and destroy parts of Ukraine under the blast zones. Furthermore if the Russians were smart and I think some of them are, then they would have SAM sites not only in Ukraine but also in Russian and Belorussian territories surrounding Ukraine. If NATO attacked these the Russian Federation would likely escalate again and hit any NATO airbases from which attacks were launched throughout Europe with tactical nuclear strikes. The escalation tornado would grow very quickly thereafter.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.
 
Oozlefinch said:
I am aware of how large they were. Today, those would be tactical weapons. Enough to destroy roughly a Division sized opening in a front line area, a major air base, or a large operational material dump. And in reality, that is what the targets of both of those attacks were. Hiroshima was the main staging base and supply dump for the area of the main island that was going to be hit first. Nagasaki was one of their largest naval bases and the home for most of their submarine forces.

That is what "tactical" means, of actual use on a battlefield. That can be fired from assets that can be used and operated from a battlefield area. Bombs from fighters or fighter-bombers, artillery, short range ground missiles, things like that. Even recoilless rifles. Not the massive "city killers" that are either on large intercontinental bombers, or on silo based missiles.

The last such missile the US deployed was the Pershing II, which were all eliminated in 1991 thanks to the 1988 INF treaty. They were armed with the W85 "dial a yield" warhead, capable of delivering from 5 to 60 kilotons up to 1,100 miles away. Most believe that the warheads if ever used would have been set to the 10-20 kt range, because the targets would have likely been close to civilian populations and they would have wanted to reduce the risk to them.

After the Pershing II missiles were broken up, they were converted to B61 gravity bombs. Which is the bomb that can be carried on more US-NATO aircraft than any other. Including the B-1, B-2, B-52, F/A-18. A-6 (retired), F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-35. It is also rated to be used by the Tornado aircraft of the UK, Italy, and Germany.
Click to expand...

This post is accurate.
 
Evilroddy said:
Rich2018:

NATO would suffer huge losses. The Russians have nuclear tipped SAMs and nuclear tipped air-to-air missiles which could devastate NATO air power and destroy parts of Ukraine under the blast zones. Furthermore if the Russians were smart and I think some of them are, then they would have SAM sites not only in Ukraine but also in Russian and Belorussian territories surrounding Ukraine. If NATO attacked these the Russian Federation would likely escalate again and hit any NATO airbases from which attacks were launched throughout Europe with tactical nuclear strikes. The escalation tornado would grow very quickly thereafter.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
This assumes peak Russian competence, communication and command integration, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom