.
Russia doesn't use tactical nukes in Ukraine even though it gets humiliated and its regime and mythology are at existential risk.
How could anyone maintain the assumption that Russia would use tactical* nukes over land against NATO if there's ever a hot war between them?
How could anyone maintain the belief that tactical nukes for use over (on) land are potentially useful, for deterrence and/or for defence?
The nuclear powers promised to work towards nuclear disarmament in exchange for non-nuclear powers promising not to pursue having own nuclear weapons. They violated their obligation to pursue their own nuclear disarmament with one-sided reinterpretations of plain treaty language, supposedly turning the NPT into a one-sided treaty in which only the non-nuclear powers have obligations.
I say it's time to restart the anti-nuke movement and to push to get rid of tactical nuclear weapons. Anyone reasonable in the nuclear powers should be able to see that the loss of "tactical" nuclear weapons is easily acceptable.
S O
*: I use for the purpose of this blog text the definition of "tactical nuclear weapon" that defines it as devices that include nuclear fission and produce an overall energy yield of less than 50 kt TNTeq.
.
I disagree with this. Russian propaganda has been very effective in developing world and they still have many potential friendly countries. Using nukes against a non-nuclear country would make Russia something that wouldn't be touched with a pole even in non-Western world. They wouldn't be able to justify it.
ReplyDeleteA NATO-Russia war is different. Especially after seeing that their reforms utterly failed they will be even more willing to use nukes against NATO, an enemy they can never beat. From their perspective, it makes perfect sense to have a stage of escalation that is incredibly destructive, somewhat equalizing and yet wouldn't automatically mean apocalypse.
And to be fair, as long as Americans have them there is an incentive for non-Western nuclear states to have them too. Americans have a very long history of weaponizing every advantage they have. Nobody can guarantee that Americans wouldn't conduct "tactical nuke diplomacy" thinking the other side wouldn't escalate to the strategic level. It is well within their headspace. That's why I think China will get a few hundred tactical nukes too.
The Russians could use a 'strategic' nuke on a battlefield for the purpose that you described.
DeleteMaybe the RUssians would not agree to a tactical nuke disarmament, but I say the Western nuclear powers (especially UK & FRA; which have no tactical nukes to lose) should make an effort to get such a disarmament treaty underway.
The Chinese are said to have gven up their minimum deterrence strategy and produce many more nukes. Let's keep them from producing lots of tactical nukes.
>still have many potential friendly countries
DeleteIran, Eritrea, maybe North Korea.
The first Anon was me, S O, using a device where I was not logged in.
DeleteTo the second anonymous:
DeletePublic perception in most of the non-West is still pro-Russian and even Mexico hasn't sanctioned Russia. They still have unrestricted access to 40% of the global economy and that percentage will grow. Using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-armed country would be considered pathetic and immoral everywhere.
They did many things that you can't rationally explain but I don't think they will use nukes against Ukraine.