Given Putin’s renewed nuclear threats today, a quick thread on why #nukes really don’t offer an effective MILITARY tool. Before we go on; yes of course it would be a dangerous, world-changing break with the nuclear taboo, would invite conventional NATO retaliation etc. (1/5) 
Typical ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons have a yield of between 1kt and 30kt. They are much smaller than megaton-range thermonuclear strategic nuclear warheads. Here is a very approximate model of a 10kt airburst over Lyman for illustration. Direct damage hardly clears the town. (2/5)
For scale, see here how this fits into just Donbas. Tactical nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for troops or civilians in the kilometre or two around the blast radius. But you would need to use lots to materially alter the balance of forces in Ukraine as a whole. (3/5)
Radioactive fallout would depend on burst-height, and would contaminate Russian territory too.
In short, not only does tactical nuclear use carry huge escalation implications and political dangers for Putin; it would be militarily ineffective unless done on a large scale (4/5)
In short, not only does tactical nuclear use carry huge escalation implications and political dangers for Putin; it would be militarily ineffective unless done on a large scale (4/5)
Also, Russia only has nuclear weapons left as a credible deterrent/threat to wield against the West. If it used nuclear weapons against Ukraine and they did not produce decisive effect, it would badly damage the credibility of the last strategically credible card they hold. (5/5)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
