Tactical Nukes

[Evilroddy]

This assumes peak Russian competence, communication and command integration, no?

reinaert:

Not with nukes it doesn't. If you can find them and get a nuclear tipped SAM or air-to-air missile in the general area then NATO planes will be destroyed and NATO pilots killed by radiation sickness, even if they escape the destruction of their planes. Bases will be turned to radioactive ruins and I expect Europe will begin to revolt against NATO or it will escalate in response unilaterally. There is no winning a nuclear exchange, just degrees of losing and tragedy..

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

 

[reinaert]

reinaert:

Not with nukes it doesn't. If you can find them and get a nuclear tipped SAM or air-to-air missile in the general area then NATO planes will be destroyed and NATO pilots killed by radiation sickness, even if they escape the destruction of their planes. Bases will be turned to radioactive ruins and I expect Europe will begin to revolt against NATO or it will escalate in response unilaterally. There is no winning a nuclear exchange, just degrees of losing and tragedy..

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

I think what has been demonstrated is that Moscow's command of Moscow's weapons systems is not robust.

 

[Evilroddy]

I think what has been demonstrated is that Moscow's command of Moscow's weapons systems is not robust.

reinaert:

That is an assumption and wars Can be lost on bad assumptions. Hoping that your enemies are incompetent is never a godd strategy in war. Any military commander will tell you that.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

 

[Oozlefinch]

If you can find them and get a nuclear tipped SAM or air-to-air missile in the general area

Actually, they have not used nuclear tipped missiles for decades. The last one they had was the old version of the S-300 / SA-10D/E circa 1985. And those were all eliminated as part of the INF treaty, and there have been no indications that Russia has been building any. The very idea of nuclear tipped SAM missiles was very much a concept of the 1950s through early 1970s. When there were no SAM systems capable of hitting high altitude bombers so using nukes as a large "area of effect" weapon was the best that really could be done.

But in the decades since, both the US and Russia have made enough advances in SAM technology that such weapons would be useless in a modern battlefield. Especially as even the idea of "massive bomber waves" of the past has been replaced by single bombers doing penetration missions. So using a nuke on a single bomber would be like using an artillery round to kill a fly.

 

[noonereal]

reinaert:

Not with nukes it doesn't. If you can find them and get a nuclear tipped SAM or air-to-air missile in the general area then NATO planes will be destroyed and NATO pilots killed by radiation sickness, even if they escape the destruction of their planes. Bases will be turned to radioactive ruins and I expect Europe will begin to revolt against NATO or it will escalate in response unilaterally. There is no winning a nuclear exchange, just degrees of losing and tragedy..

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

Well explained.
Expect the rocket scientists here to disagree with you now.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Expect the rocket scientists here to disagree with you now.

I will, rather easily in fact.

Neither Russia nor NATO uses nuclear tipped SAMs, and there were only 2 ever nuclear tipped air to air missiles.

One of them was the AIM-26 Falcon. This was used by the US from 1961 to 1998, and used a W54 warhead that had an estimated yield of between 20 and 200 tons (not kilotons, tons). It was actually the same warhead that was used on the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle. The other one the US used was the AIR-2 Genie. In service from 1957-1984, it used a 1.5 kt warhead.

The Soviets never bothered to develop nuclear tipped air to air missiles. That is because their equivalent SAM systems that did have nuclear warheads were mobile. As opposed to those of the US which were fixed positions. And this is simply due to the defensive systems used by each country.

The Soviets relied upon the S-300 / SS-10 surface to air missile, which could be moved anywhere it was needed. So there is no need to an air to air missile to do the exact same job, you just put a ground based one where it is needed.

The US on the other hand never used mobile nuclear tipped SAM systems. The only one with that capability was the Nike system. That was entirely based upon permanent ground based emplacements, and was not mobile at all. They did experiment with making the system mobile from 1960-1962. However, it was simply not possible because of the mass of the missiles used (a single NIKE HERCULES missile weighed in at over 5.5 tons). SO they continued to use the AIM-26 and AIR-2 until after the cold war to cover areas that we had no such coverage.

 

[Evilroddy]

Actually, they have not used nuclear tipped missiles for decades. The last one they had was the old version of the S-300 / SA-10D/E circa 1985. And those were all eliminated as part of the INF treaty, and there have been no indications that Russia has been building any. The very idea of nuclear tipped SAM missiles was very much a concept of the 1950s through early 1970s. When there were no SAM systems capable of hitting high altitude bombers so using nukes as a large "area of effect" weapon was the best that really could be done.

But in the decades since, both the US and Russia have made enough advances in SAM technology that such weapons would be useless in a modern battlefield. Especially as even the idea of "massive bomber waves" of the past has been replaced by single bombers doing penetration missions. So using a nuke on a single bomber would be like using an artillery round to kill a fly.

Ozzlefinch:

Yes, I stand corrected on the Soviet-era air-to-air missiles which have been reliably decommissioned and destroyed. However Russia may have held onto many SA-300 compatible nuclear warheads as this linked presentation alludes to:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Science_and_Technology/06-F-0446_DOC_10_The_Nuclear_Weapons_Policy_of_the_Russian_Federation.pdf

See p. 23 of the PDF.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

 

[Aristaeus]

Putin would have to be an absolute madman to use nukes against Ukraine.

1. Wind would carry some of the radiation into Russia.
2. Any use of nukes would get NATO involved. If his army can't even stand up to Ukraine's, they'd get steamrolled by NATO's.

3. Ukraine is a major crop-growing region. Highly unlikely Russia would irradiate strategic crop-growing land

 

[Quag]

3. Ukraine is a major crop-growing region. Highly unlikely Russia would irradiate strategic crop-growing land

Dont forget prevailing winds blow west to east there. Russia risks fallout blowing on themselves.

 

[Aristaeus]

Dont forget prevailing winds blow west to east there. Russia risks fallout blowing on themselves.

Yep. I genuinely think the military would more likely stage a coup than go along with a unprovoked nuclear strike.

 

[EnigmaO01]

Dont forget prevailing winds blow west to east there. Russia risks fallout blowing on themselves.

According to this source it varies depending on where you are in the country.

In the north, east, and south, the easterly and southeasterly winds prevail, in the west – northwesterly and westerly, while in the southwest – southerly and southeasterly.

National Atlas Of Ukraine

 

[Quag]

According to this source it varies depending on where you are in the country.

In the north, east, and south, the easterly and southeasterly winds prevail, in the west – northwesterly and westerly, while in the southwest – southerly and southeasterly.

National Atlas Of Ukraine

I stand corrected

 

[Oozlefinch]

Yes, I stand corrected on the Soviet-era air-to-air missiles which have been reliably decommissioned and destroyed. However Russia may have held onto many SA-300 compatible nuclear warheads as this linked presentation alludes to:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Science_and_Technology/06-F-0446_DOC_10_The_Nuclear_Weapons_Policy_of_the_Russian_Federation.pdf
See p. 23 of the PDF.

The current generations in use of the S-300 are not nuclear capable. And your own reference says nothing of the kind.

It talks about their missile forces, but that is not their ADA forces. Soviet-Russian missile forces are those that have offensive weapons to be used against ground targets. Like ground attack cruise missiles, MLRS, and things like that. The air defense systems fall under the Air Defense Forces, and not the Rocket or Missile Forces.

And sorry, but I pretty much have to reject that reference anyways. It provides no sources, no references, and is really just a bunch of random quotes from somewhere with no real factual or contextual information at all.

But it is not even that they destroyed their air to air nuclear missiles, I have never found any source that said they had ever developed any in the first place. The two I listed were both US systems, but I would be interested in knowing what Soviet ones you think there were as I could not find any listed at all.

And the INF treaty was signed way back in 1988, and went into effect in 1992. I can't see either the Soviets or Russia holding onto 30 year old nukes. Especially as they would have been for a system (S-300PS/PM), which was only in use for about a decade and was retired long ago. And the missiles would not be operational, so they would have had to construct entirely new missiles to use them. Air Defense missiles only have a "shelf life" of around 10 years. That is why each year a lot of units at Fort Bliss get to go out to White Sands and play with them. They have already reached their shelf life, so it is often better to use them in training instead of simply destroying them.

One must pay attention when talking about equipment like this, as just saying "S-300" is not really enough. They have gone through many variations since the system was first fielded in 1967, and the ones that even could have fired nuclear tipped missiles are long out of service. Along with any that would know how to operate them in the first place.

The current generation are not even known as the S-300 (SA-10 "Grumble") anymore. It is actually the S-400 (SA-21 "Growler"), as the system has had so many changes and upgrades that it is barely the same system. The system they developed for using the nuclear variants of the missiles were the S-200PM and S-300 PS. Those were retired after the INF, and replaced with the non-nuclear S-300 PMU series, and now the S-300V series.

 

[Evilroddy]

@Oozlefinch

Please see the following regarding nuclear dual-capable SAM missile systems for the S-300 and S-400 SAM systems. Page 102 is where the relevant section starts. And it's more han just the SA-20 and SA-21 systems.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.1885869

Nonstrategic nuclear weapons in missile defense
The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review also asserted that Russia continues to use nuclear warheads in its air and missile defense forces. The missile defense forces use the Gazelle interceptor, but the Nuclear Posture Review did not identify which air defense system has dual- capability or how many are assigned nuclear warheads. The US Defense Intelligence Agency said in its March 2018 Worldwide Threat Assessment that, “Russia may also have warheads for surface-to-air and other aerospace defense missile systems” (Ashley 2018). The S-300 is gradually being replaced by the S-400 system with SA-21 interceptors, and US government sources privately indicate that both the S-300 (SA-20) and S-400 (SA-21) are dual-capable.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Please see the following regarding nuclear dual-capable SAM missile systems for the S-300 and S-400 SAM systems. Page 102 is where the relevant section starts. And it's more han just the SA-20 and SA-21 systems.

Which once again says nothing about the Soviets or Russians ever having a nuclear air to air missile.

And all that reference says is that it is "dual capable". That is not the same thing as saying it is nuclear. There are many systems that the US uses that are "dual capable", but are not nuclear armed.

The TOmahawk system of the US is "dual capable", and can be launched from ground based systems and not just ships and aircraft. That does not mean that it is.

 

[noonereal]

Yep. I genuinely think the military would more likely stage a coup than go along with a unprovoked nuclear strike.

I just can't understand why someone would believe this.

What do you base this on?

 

[Aristaeus]

I just can't understand why someone would believe this.

What do you base this on?

That the Russian generals aren't crazy and when push comes to shove, they are not going to stand by and let Russia and the Russian army be destroyed in a nuclear exchange just to soothe the ego of Putin, who is rumuored to be terminally ill anyway.

 

[noonereal]

That the Russian generals aren't crazy and when push comes to shove, they are not going to stand by and let Russia and the Russian army be destroyed in a nuclear exchange just to soothe the ego of Putin, who is rumuored to be terminally ill anyway.

Oh, OK, nothing.

You do realize this don't you?

You have zero reason to believe this.

 

[Cordelier]

That the Russian generals aren't crazy and when push comes to shove, they are not going to stand by and let Russia and the Russian army be destroyed in a nuclear exchange just to soothe the ego of Putin, who is rumuored to be terminally ill anyway.

Try telling that to Major Hering.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Yep. I genuinely think the military would more likely stage a coup than go along with a unprovoked nuclear strike.

They don't have to stage a coup, simply basically mutiny and refuse the orders.

And that is hardly unique. During the "Soviet Coup" of 1991, quite a few military units simply refused orders. Either sitting in their barracks and refusing to leave them, or taking to the streets with orders to only fire if fired upon. They do not have to stage a coup, simply refuse to follow orders.

 

[Oozlefinch]

One of my favorite orders from the Soviet Coup was of a Colonel that was a Regimental Commander.

He and his Regiment left and took up positions in one of the major cities, with orders to maintain the peace, and to not fire on anybody unless they were fired upon first. And he said that other in self defense, they were never to open fire on anybody. One of his Battalion commanders asked what if those over him sent orders to open fire, and he shook his head and said he would never allow such an order to go through. And such would only come if he was already dead. And at that point they would simply have to follow their own conscience.

I look back and consider what happened in August 1991, and that pretty much is what I would expect to happen again. Putin is no Stalin, no matter how much he likes to think he is. And I am sure a lot of the mid-level commanders of Regiments and Brigades would see their duty to the people themselves as more important to whoever the leader is. And the Russian Military going back over 100 years has a tradition of simply refusing orders that they think puts them in violation of that duty. That is why for most of the really dirty work, the Soviets never relied upon the military as much as their State Security forces. And the placement of such officers inside of military units. Yet something else that ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.