Is a limited nuclear exchange possible?

[pecksniff]

Nothing involving cities. Putin deploys tactical nukes in the field, wipes out Ukrainian forces in a targeted area. U.S. responds by using similar weapons to wipe out the main Russian troop concentrations. Putin backs down.

Could this happen, without touching off a full-on nuclear exchange?

 

[MKvDeepSea]

Cold war veteran...flashing back to the 1970's. Would you trust anyone with this type of exchange? Especially the Ruskies?

 

[GeorgeSoros]

Very improbably. I believe the general consensus is, any limited nuclear exchange would quickly devolve into global thermonuclear war.

Edit: And this is problematic, because it’s not obvious that Putin shares this assessment. There’s reason to believe that Putin believes Russia could win in a scenario involving the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Nothing involving cities. Putin deploys tactical nukes in the field, wipes out Ukrainian forces in a targeted area. U.S. responds by using similar weapons to wipe out the main Russian troop concentrations. Putin backs down.

Could this happen, without touching off a full-on nuclear exchange?

Probably not. Putin would not back down, he would escalate.

 

[pecksniff]

Probably not. Putin would not back down, he would escalate.

Urgh. I really don't want to see Moscow destroyed. All that beautiful architecture!

 

[WillJ8787]

Nothing involving cities. Putin deploys tactical nukes in the field, wipes out Ukrainian forces in a targeted area. U.S. responds by using similar weapons to wipe out the main Russian troop concentrations. Putin backs down.

Could this happen, without touching off a full-on nuclear exchange?

As long as authoritarianism and dictatorial types are in power in the world(like Putin, Xi, Kim, LePen, Trump) it remains a significant possibility.

 

[MKvDeepSea]

This kinda reminds me of a deputy sheriff I knew who was suspended for excessive force. He and his partner were preparing to enter a home of a barricaded armed suspect. He was on one side of the door and his partner was on the other, both armed with shotguns loaded with buckshot. The suspect came busting out of the door firing his shotgun. His partner jumped off the porch and he threw himself backward shooting the suspect in the legs. The suspect's defense lawyer filed an excessive force charge against him for using buckshot while the suspect was only using birdshot.

During the hearing, the deputy got pissed and asked them, "What the fuck was I supposed to do? Ask him what type of fucking shot he was using while shooting at me and reload my fucking shotgun with fucking birdshot?"

Yep, I can see that exchange between to nuke armed countries..."Excuse me, are we just going to nuke just the ground troops? Let me know so I return a likewise response...We want to be fair you know."

 

[LupusDei]

Nothing involving cities. Putin deploys tactical nukes in the field, wipes out Ukrainian forces in a targeted area. U.S. responds by using similar weapons to wipe out the main Russian troop concentrations. Putin backs down.

Could this happen, without touching off a full-on nuclear exchange?

First, as far I know U.S. doesn't currently possess tactical nukes in their inventory.

Second, Ukrainians defend in cities. There's very limited pure "field" concentrations. Dispersal is enforced by Russian advantage in artillery volume already, no need to specifically worry about tactical nukes. So if those are used it would be over a city, although perhaps almost fully evacuated.

I haven't seen it, just some comments, but there's seems to be a paper published today in U.S. that analyzes effect of a small tactical nuke, and concluded that it's not in fact significantly worse than what destruction we have already seen achieved by conventional weapons and so there's no need for U.S. to answer nuclear, that strong conventional response would be more adequate. It's somewhat dangerous train of thought as it might normalize such use.

 

[pecksniff]

First, as far I know U.S. doesn't currently possess tactical nukes in their inventory.

Did not know that. Well, I'm sure their manufacture is not beyond the capacity of whoever makes our strategic nukes. In fact, it's not inconceivable that the USG would have them produced, just to supply them to Ukraine.

 

[MKvDeepSea]

Sure, we don't have any tactical nuclear weapons; officially, maybe. But I bet there is a stockpile of nuclear warhead somewhere that can be switched out with the warheads carried on our guided missile frigates.

 

[Chobham]

First, as far I know U.S. doesn't currently possess tactical nukes in their inventory.

Second, Ukrainians defend in cities. There's very limited pure "field" concentrations. Dispersal is enforced by Russian advantage in artillery volume already, no need to specifically worry about tactical nukes. So if those are used it would be over a city, although perhaps almost fully evacuated.

I haven't seen it, just some comments, but there's seems to be a paper published today in U.S. that analyzes effect of a small tactical nuke, and concluded that it's not in fact significantly worse than what destruction we have already seen achieved by conventional weapons and so there's no need for U.S. to answer nuclear, that strong conventional response would be more adequate. It's somewhat dangerous train of thought as it might normalize such use.

The US has 230 non-strategic nukes in the inventory as of the latest report. 100 of which are forward deployed in Europe with the remaining 130 held in reserve in the US. The type of warhead is of the B-61 design and alternate sources indicate that there may be as many as 1200 + in inventory.

The Russians are estimated to have over 6,000 non-strategic nukes in inventory and they are of a far greater variety.

 

[pecksniff]

The US has 230 non-strategic nukes in the inventory as of the latest report. 100 of which are forward deployed in Europe with the remaining 130 held in reserve in the US. The type of warhead is of the B-61 design and alternate sources indicate that there may be as many as 1200 + in inventory.

The Russians are estimated to have over 6,000 non-strategic nukes in inventory and they are of a far greater variety.

That would make a limited nuclear exchange . . . interesting. Like, bookies would take bets on what model would be used next.

 

[LupusDei]

Now, Lukashenko (Belarus) is reportedly threatening to attack Poland. Because, allegedly, his border guards got shot at from slingshots and a window was broken.

 

[pecksniff]

Now, Lukashenko (Belarus) is reportedly threatening to attack Poland. Because, allegedly, his border guards got shot at from slingshots and a window was broken.

Let him retaliate with bottle rockets and cherry bombs.

 

[Chobham]

Now, Lukashenko (Belarus) is reportedly threatening to attack Poland. Because, allegedly, his border guards got shot at from slingshots and a window was broken.

That is some serious provocation.

 

[Champakian]

No.

It will escalate...

There's no way to say that it won't lead to population/manufacturing centers.

 

[Chobham]

What the hell is it with those Central Europeans?

 

[Champakian]

They feel surrounded?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I think its inevitable Putin will use battle field nukes. For the same reason he used a hypersonic missile - to make sure they work and to demonstrate Russia's military prowess.

There will be no NATO or US military response.

 

[Chobham]

What's missing in this discussion is China. The more radical Putin gets the greater the Chinese will suffer. Xi will only tolerate so much before he takes action against Russia.

 

[Dribble]

Depends. I have no doubt Putin would detonate one or two. Would we do anything to retaliate? Nope. Not a chance. We will send prayers and condolences.

 

[icanhelp1]

First, as far I know U.S. doesn't currently possess tactical nukes in their inventory.

Second, Ukrainians defend in cities. There's very limited pure "field" concentrations. Dispersal is enforced by Russian advantage in artillery volume already, no need to specifically worry about tactical nukes. So if those are used it would be over a city, although perhaps almost fully evacuated.

I haven't seen it, just some comments, but there's seems to be a paper published today in U.S. that analyzes effect of a small tactical nuke, and concluded that it's not in fact significantly worse than what destruction we have already seen achieved by conventional weapons and so there's no need for U.S. to answer nuclear, that strong conventional response would be more adequate. It's somewhat dangerous train of thought as it might normalize such use.

First, as far I know U.S. doesn't currently possess tactical nukes in their inventory.

Second, Ukrainians defend in cities. There's very limited pure "field" concentrations. Dispersal is enforced by Russian advantage in artillery volume already, no need to specifically worry about tactical nukes. So if those are used it would be over a city, although perhaps almost fully evacuated.

I haven't seen it, just some comments, but there's seems to be a paper published today in U.S. that analyzes effect of a small tactical nuke, and concluded that it's not in fact significantly worse than what destruction we have already seen achieved by conventional weapons and so there's no need for U.S. to answer nuclear, that strong conventional response would be more adequate. It's somewhat dangerous train of thought as it might normalize such use.

Yes, B-61 series low to mid yield gravity can be dropped by f-35 and I believe F-22