The Institute for the Study of Military Conflicts of the United States called the condition for the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin is unlikely to order the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine weapons. This was reported by the American Institute for the Study of Military Conflicts (ISW), which analyzes the events in Ukraine.

At the same time, the institute's experts believe that Russia will continue the special military operation in Ukraine in 2023. But it will be carried out with the use of conventional weapons.

As the only likely reason for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Ukrainian armed forces, American experts consider the "sudden collapse" of the Russian army. In this case, the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be able to move uncontrollably along the entire front, which will force Moscow to resort to extreme measures.

But such a situation, ISW emphasizes, is unlikely. At the same time, experts believe that Putin can count on the cessation of active military assistance from the West, as European countries will focus on solving their own problems in connection with the energy crisis in winter.

It should be noted that much will depend on further political events in the United States. For example, not only the Republican Party, but also some Democrats are already in favor of reducing the volume of financial and military assistance to Ukraine.

Opponents of multibillion-dollar tranches believe that the White House should pay attention to solving the country's internal problems, and not support Ukraine and finance its "endless" confrontation with Russia.

Comments

[Uprun]

I won’t be surprised if the West says in the spring that the regime of green beans is somehow not entirely democratic ...... though there has long been no freedom of the media, parties and other democratic crap, with the exception of LGBT ....., but who cares .....

[aars]

We ourselves, ourselves, must act decisively, and not argue that somewhere the Westerners will say something, the Poles will attack and other soothing nonsense.
Again, perhaps, someone across the ocean will run into Ze and everything will settle down ...
No, it won’t run over, the Poles won’t attack, that’s nonsense!

[Lech from Android.]

When modeling a situation, one should always proceed from the worst-case scenario ... then troubles will not come as a surprise.
We cannot rule out a sudden attack by NATO countries on our troops in Ukraine... you just have to be prepared for this.

[EFIM LYUBIN]

If this happens, then it is immediately necessary to deliver a preemptive strike of nuclear weapons on the decision-making centers of NATO, the USA and the EEC! There will be no retaliatory strike - there will be no one to give orders to! But the Kremlin may be responding to a nuclear attack on Russia. May be...

[flicker]

We ourselves must act decisively

Yes, but only with cold and precise calculation.
Those. take into account all factors, including the position of the West on Ukraine.
Why is this position important?
We defeated Ukraine already in May (Ukraine's own military capabilities were exhausted) and only the help of the West kept Ukraine from defeat and economic collapse.
Now the West itself, or rather Europe.
Europe (primarily Germany), under pressure from the United States, agreed to gas sanctions against Russia, with guarantees from the United States that Russia would collapse by the fall of 2022 (from sanctions, war and economic collapse) and Europe would get gas almost free of charge.
Autumn came, Russia did not collapse, but Europe began to have problems, Germany was already ready to abandon gas sanctions and turn on SP-2, and then the explosion occurred.
Europe suddenly realized what awaits it.
Everything would be fine, but Europe, among other things, is the Ukrainian rear.
Already this winter, the "Ukrainian rear" will not be up to the Ukrainian front.
A front without a rear will not last long.
---

Again, perhaps, someone across the ocean will run into Ze and everything will settle down

It is enough that they will not be able (at least temporarily) to provide assistance in the same volume.
Why shouldn't this (winter, cold, recession in the economy, growing social tensions, elections to the Senate and Congress) be taken into account (at least in time) for their active operations at the front?

[Plate]

Quote: flicker

Germany was already ready to abandon gas sanctions and turn on SP-2

Where did this information go? I just missed it, but I’m sure that if the German leadership seriously discussed the lifting of sanctions and a return to gas purchases, and even on Russian terms, this would quickly circle the entire globe if it surfaced.

[flicker]

Where did this information go?

The first is that Germany was vitally interested in the launch of the SP-2, but at the same time, for some reason, agreed to the sanctions. Why? The answer will be below.
Before such information is announced, IT IS DISCUSSED on the sidelines. And these discussions have indirect signs

Russia did not use gas and the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as a weapon. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel made this statement. 18 June in an interview with RedaktionsNetwerk Deutschland.

Merkel, as a former chancellor (not afraid of resignation), expresses the opinion of industrialists.

Poland assessed the damage from the actions of the Nazis at $1,32 trillion, calling this figure limited and noting that it could grow. In response, the German authorities stated that they considered the issue of reparations closed, and Chancellor Olaf Scholz threatened Poland with a revision of state borders. At the same time, the Polish government continued to insist on its own. How the issue of reparations was resolved after the Second World War, why Poland raised it again right now, and what the Poles' demands on Germany would lead to, Lenta.ru figured out.

September 1, 2022 Chairman of Poland's ruling Law and Justice Party, Jarosław Kaczynski, said the country's authorities would officially demand reparations from Germany for the victims and destruction inflicted during World War II.

Could Poland have run into Germany without US permission? No, she couldn't. What is Germany's fault?

On the night of 25 to 26 September sabotage occurred on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline!

A little later, a landmark reaction from the Polish MEP

Thus, a member of the European Parliament from Poland, a former foreign minister of the country, Radoslaw Sikorski, representing the opposition Civic Platform, posted on Twitter a photo of a section of the Baltic Sea where gas was rising from a destroyed pipeline, accompanying it with the words: “Thank you, USA!”

---
Question: why the joint venture was blown up only at the end of September, why did they wait all spring and summer? Isn't that why

Europe (primarily Germany), under pressure from the United States, agreed to gas sanctions against Russia, with guarantees from the United States that Russia would collapse by the fall of 2022 (from sanctions, war and economic collapse) and Europe would get gas almost free of charge.

?
They could have waited longer, but they blew it up. Maybe the reason is that the promise was not fulfilled?

[Reptiloid]

Quote: flicker

The first is that Germany was vitally interested in launching SP-2,

No. The German ruling coalition was not interested in launching SP-2.

The ruling coalition was interested in the fact that there was no Russian gas, but in order to lay the blame for this on the opposition (on the CDU / CSU that lost the last elections).

Quote: flicker

Merkel, as a former chancellor (not afraid of resignation), expresses the opinion of industrialists.

Merkel expresses the opinion of her party, the CDU/CSU. The very one that the ruling coalition is now blaming for Germany's dependence on Russian gas.

Quote: flicker

Question: why was the joint venture blown up only at the end of September, why did they wait all spring and summer?

They blew up after the surrender of Kupyansk and after the decision to return the Siemens turbine. When it became clear that:
1. Europe will not buy gas blackmail.
2. Gazprom does not have any legal grounds not to fulfill its obligations under the contract.

[flicker]

You Ukrainians are very difficult to understand. You had everything: resorts, the sea, mountains, rivers, nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power plants, ports, metallurgical plants, aircraft building, rocket building, shipbuilding, car building, coal deposits, agriculture, institutes, universities, the Academy of Sciences ... and finally oil and gas pipelines.

And you managed to screw everything up in 30 years.
And most importantly, your brains.
---

They blew up after the surrender of Kupyansk and after the decision to return the Siemens turbine

What does the surrender of Kupyansk have to do with undermining the joint venture?

Europe won't buy gas blackmail

Europe has been buying gas from us for several decades and it seems that it did not suffer much from this.

Europe actively participated in the construction of the joint venture. She must have seen the point.

Since when has the supply of cheap gas become a method of blackmail? We did not refuse to supply and did not raise prices.

Gazprom does not have any legal grounds not to fulfill its obligations under the contract

Well, yes, the explosion of the joint venture is not a reason?

[Reptiloid]

Quote: flicker

You Ukrainians are very difficult to understand.

Try to stop trying to see "Ukrainians" in everyone who makes reasonable objections to your fantasies.

Maybe then it will be easier for you to understand the interlocutor.

Quote: flicker

What does the surrender of Kupyansk have to do with undermining the joint venture?

Yes, no less than the Polish "reparations".

Quote: flicker

Europe has been buying gas from us for several decades and it seems that it did not suffer much from this.

So Russia at that time did not seem to suffer much from the "approach of NATO."

Quote: flicker

Since when has the supply of cheap gas become a method of blackmail? We refused to supply

You personally - maybe not refused. But they didn't deliver.

Gazprom - refused under far-fetched pretexts.

Quote: flicker

Well, yes, the explosion of the joint venture is not a reason?

Which, as it were, hints at who actually this explosion was beneficial.

[flicker]

Try to stop trying to see "Ukrainians" in everyone who makes reasonable objections to your fantasies.

It's already ridiculous, I should not see a "Ukrainian" in someone who speaks like a Ukrainian, supports Ukrainians, takes the position of Ukraine in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck."
---
I admit that you are not a Ukrainian, but a "patriot of Israel."
But even if you are a "patriot of Israel" write that

The German ruling coalition was not interested in launching SP-2.

to the statement that "Germany was vitally interested in the launch of SP-2" - this is tantamount to the statement "bees against honey."
Yes, and all your "reasonable objections" from the same opera.
You are just doing verbal balancing act:

Europe has been buying gas from us for several decades and it seems that it did not suffer much from this.

So Russia at that time did not seem to suffer much from the "approach of NATO."

Can this be compared?
---
Better read this https://cont.ws/@sonofcont/2409454
If too lazy to read, then excerpts:

About the "troll factory"
“I opened a shift in the Elf Bot in Telegram, received a VK profile from him, turned on the VPN, went in and went
There are four shifts in total. You can take a maximum of two per day. And almost all people take two shifts. Settlement every two weeks in cash,

A separate person - a monitor - monitors fresh posts in channels and publics in VK and collects them in a special table. When fresh publications appear there, the elves begin to comment on them.

. Every day there is a new topic of comments, usually related to the agenda - for example, explosions in Crimea. And under it suitable messages for commenting are selected.

“Comments do not have to be lengthy. There is no norm. A comment can also be from one sentence ...
Such comments should also be recorded with a screenshot. All this is ultimately taken into account in performance indicators.
The top of the most successful authors who have most reactions and responses to their comments. Those at the top of this ranking get more shifts. And earn more money accordingly.

You look like there

[Reptiloid]

Quote: flicker

It's already funny, I should not see a "Ukrainian" in someone who speaks like a Ukrainian,

If the manifestation of sanity for you means "speaks like a Ukrainian", then maybe something is wrong with your own position?

Quote: flicker

supports Ukrainians,

Where did you get this from?

Quote: flicker

occupies in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine

And where did you get the idea that we are talking about a "conflict between Russia and Ukraine"?

Let me remind you that this was about the interests of Germany, about which you have absolutely no idea.

Quote: flicker

write that

The German ruling coalition was not interested in launching SP-2.
to the statement that "Germany was vitally interested in the launch of SP-2" - this is tantamount to the statement "bees against honey."

But this is what you say just because see above.

Quote: flicker

Can this be compared?

What prevents?

Quote: flicker

Better read this https://cont.ws/@sonofcont/2409454

What for?

[dmi.pris1]

He will not say. As long as we, Russia, are there. There is a war against us.

[svp67]

Quote from uprun

I won’t be surprised if in the spring the West says that the regime of green beans is somehow not entirely democratic ......

If they manage to survive this winter without strong shocks, then they WILL NOT SAY for sure

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: svp67

If they manage to survive this winter without major shocks,

I'm thinking about how we can survive this winter without global upheavals. And even if the winter passes more or less calmly, then in the spring we should expect a serious aggravation, and as a result, the second and third mobilization waves. Therefore, I urge everyone to prepare in advance, at least in terms of medicine. There is still time to order high-quality replicas of IPPs and turnstiles on Alik.
But unfortunately people do not stir from the word at all. While even our tactical bloggers and doctors are trying to make money on promoting their brands (LEAF, also made in China), Khokhls are intensively buying up Rino first aid kits, in parallel with the troll on resources, saying that Chinese replicas are only for Russian.
Therefore, I urge everyone to at least create their own alarming suitcase, and inspire the need for it in their environment.
You are a former military man Sergei, you must understand this. And so we just have to slightly abuse our position as a moderator, and promote this idea.
P.S. In my gym, they already conduct trainings on the use of tourniquets, turnstiles and IPP.

[svp67]

Quote: Ingvar 72

I already have trainings in the gym on the use of tourniquets, tourniquets and PPIs

Here you are, well done. This MUST be taught. As well as the methods of carrying the wounded, by the way, good strength exercises.

Quote: Ingvar 72

And so we just have to slightly abuse our position as a moderator, and promote this idea.

Unfortunately I can't do it...
Although I strongly support your ideas and thoughts and mostly agree with them

[nobody75]

What other shocks? What other mobilization? The main "shaker" and "mobilizer" went to e-burg to improve his health ... (and save business in the local training after Yevkurov's visit). Who, without Himself, would dare to mobilize? This is not for you...
Sincerely

[credo]

If the Anglo-Saxons constantly talk about the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, then the message suggests itself - they are waiting for an opportunity to detonate a "dirty bomb" on the territory of the former. Ukrainian SSR and then loudly declare "Well, we warned everyone !!!".

Ideology is a very powerful force when it is pumped through human psychology, and the Anglo-Saxons do it daily through all the media and international organizations.

[Aerodrome]

fascism popped by leaps and bounds, can you imagine what will happen next? the world has become for fascism, we are against it, and dozens of states are for it, helping the "ruin". the world is very gloomy in its tones, nothing good will happen. in the "forties" it was like a "watershed", it was clear that the whole world was fighting fascism, and now the world has become fascism, again. and one country can against the whole world?

[Buyan]

Do not calm down, it seems that they themselves will provoke Bandera

[rotmistr60]

Finally, at least ISW admitted that Russia will not use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Although, as befits the enemy of our country, they made a reservation for their own people so that they would not be suspected of having a normal attitude towards Moscow: "the" sudden collapse "of the Russian army, but such a situation is unlikely." But there will definitely not be a "crash".

[Neo-9947]

Somehow on the side, who recognized what they had there. The colleague above has already written that we ourselves need to do everything and look less at the West.
We will not be "good" for them in the foreseeable future.
And in general it is time to resume nuclear tests.
As they say, we are the bad guys for them.
But very cool.
Let them be afraid.

[rotmistr60]

Quote: Neo-9947

Somehow on the side

You know, I, too, somehow sideways, and even more so without regard to the West. But I focus on the fact that after almost three weeks of screaming in almost all Western media about the "possible use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia," articles suddenly began to appear denying this.

[Plate]

Nuclear testing is not cool. To have a nuclear arsenal such that it would be possible to smash all the countries in the world, that would be cool. But alas, alas, START-3.

[futurohunter]

Plate:
Do you need to destroy the Vatican with Honduras too? Why anyway? There are quite enough nuclear weapons in the world. Already the Russian Federation and the United States have more than enough to make "the living envy the dead"

[Plate]

Who needs to be smashed, we will decide along the way, but there should be an opportunity for everyone. It seems to me that the nuclear arsenal limited by START-3 is not enough for the apocalypse.

[futurohunter]

Plate
... the nuclear arsenal limited by START-3 is not enough for the apocalypse

Only the USSR and the USA (we don’t count the rest), only have more than 6000 strategic charges, with an average yield of 300 kilotons. Is this not enough?! If they all go into action, tens, if not hundreds of millions of people will die! What other apocalypse do you need?!

[Plate]

Quote: futurohunter

Only the USSR and the USA (we don’t count the rest)

Hello, the 91st year has already passed.

Quote: futurohunter

only strategic charges more than 6000 pieces

START-3 introduces stricter limits on the number of strategic warheads.

Quote: futurohunter

Isn't that enough ?!

Yes, even that would not be enough.

Quote: futurohunter

If they all go into action, tens, if not hundreds of millions of people will die! What other apocalypse do you need?!

Hundreds of millions of people, okay. But I remind you that there are one and a half billion of them in China alone. And India has over a billion more. Europe + USA is also almost a billion in total. There are also South America and Africa.

[futurohunter]

Do you want to destroy all the people on the globe?! Believe me, in the case of Armageddon, which you so dream about, few survivors will envy the dead. And what we have now is more than enough to bring any country to the state of the Stone Age. And countries like Great Britain (not to mention the smaller ones) will be practically destroyed. By the way, look at the map and see where people live. A significant part of China is mountains and deserts, and the population is crowded in a small number of areas. Likewise, in the US, most of the population lives along the west and east coasts. The rest is mountains, deserts and countryside. In Russia, most of the population is crowded in the European part and in a narrow strip in the south of Siberia and the Far East. In India - in the center and on the south coast. EU countries are small - Ukraine is larger and are very densely populated. It will fall exactly there, and not into the mountains and deserts. Africa and Australia are of little interest, as is Latin America. So most of the world's population is doomed in the event of such events.

[Plate]

Quote: futurohunter

Believe me, in the case of Armageddon, which you so dream about, few survivors will envy the dead.

I don't dream of Armageddon. I dream of being able to arrange it. Different things, mind you. And even with modern nuclear arsenals, Armageddon cannot be arranged with all the will. Of course, it will be enough to defeat the same States or Europe as states, there is no doubt about it. But the destruction will not be total. The same Europe has already experienced apocalypses in its history.

Quote: futurohunter

Africa and Australia are of little interest, as is Latin America.

After the mutual destruction of Russia and Western countries, they will simply occupy the vacant space. Of course, the first years will suffer from environmental consequences (possibly), but then they will sail to nuclear California and start digging into the archives of Silicon Valley there. So take down everyone, whatever happens.

[futurohunter]

You apparently made a mistake, and wanted to say: from the economic consequences (and not the environmental ones). For the environment for countries living in the garbage (Africa and Latin America) is not terrible. But economically they are very dependent. They will have nowhere to sell their bananas, and nowhere to carry equipment. There will be subsistence farming. The drug mafia will be out of work, and will begin to divide the land and pastures remaining under crops. And in Africa and in LatAmerike the most severe internecine wars will break out. "Prosperous" Australia will be captured by numerous representatives of the Chinese diaspora, who fled from Armageddon and all sorts of territories where there will be nothing to eat. And Europe will roll back to the times of the dark Middle Ages, where the surviving and feral descendants of medieval barbarians and proud Romans will share the remaining goodies. Your radioactive Silicon Valley will be of no interest to anyone in a world where there is not enough electricity. Not to mention the fact that the Internet will no longer exist in this world. Watch the movie "Threads", everything is well shown there

[Plate]

I wrote what I wanted. But you are also right. I didn't think about those implications. Nevertheless, I believe that in 10-15 years the countries not affected by nuclear strikes will generally come to their senses and begin to try to occupy the vacant space. I wouldn't want to leave them anything. Yes, and America, Europe, China and India would like to be guaranteed to be incinerated if necessary. All at once and completely. I will watch the movie at my leisure.

[futurohunter]

Well no. I think that the collapse of states is generally possible. Due to the pressure of the crowds of refugees, with whom all sorts of armed formations (both legal and illegal) will inevitably move, the borders will collapse. Governments will lose power. What type of Libyan scenario. The desert, which the countries participating in a vigorous war will turn into, a small population trying to survive in these territories. The territories of countries not affected by nuclear strikes will turn into a battlefield for numerous groups for resources. In some places, regular armies will also remain (such as Haftar's army in Libya). And somewhere, some remnants of the armies may still have nuclear weapons! With a high degree of probability, fleets will survive, which will hardly suffer from nuclear strikes. On board the ships will be hungry soldiers and possibly unused nuclear weapons. What do you think they will do?
The post-apocalypse will be no less gloomy than a vigorous war. Not even in 10-15, but perhaps in 50 years, the stocks of weapons will run out. The world will consist of disparate agricultural countries, plowing on horses and bulls, and trying to trade with each other for what little they have.
But ... I'm afraid that in this future there will be neither you nor your loved ones. You may be lucky if you live far from major cities. But, if in a large city, or its environs, then fate will be unenviable ...
Maybe it's better to live peacefully and visit each other?!

[Plate]

Of course, I will not be: I live in one of the Russian industrial and centers. So any nuclear war for me will definitely be the end. That's why it's a shame that someone will survive, but I, most likely, will not. So if I die, let the rest of the world evaporate into plasma.
Even if the states that did not fall under nuclear strikes disintegrate, new formations will gather in their place. Since there will be someone to collect. None of this will happen in the nuclear desert. And why are you worried about them, if you yourself, too, will probably recline even with the current nuclear arsenals?
It's just that if we have the opportunity to erase the whole world into plasma, then aggressive actions against us in the international arena will look a little different, in my opinion.
"I just wanted a lot of thermonuclear warheads."

[futurohunter]

Plasma is not needed. No human resources will be enough for plasma. But even what is there is more than enough to frighten us with the threat of mutually assured destruction. The enemy does not need to be frightened by plasma. You don’t even need to scare with a falling warhead. Enough impeachment

[spirit]

Tactical nuclear weapons would be effective, for example, to destroy the enemy’s motorized wedges, or vice versa, make a gap in the defense and go into it with these wedges. There is nothing of this in this war. they will still resist, there is no point at all if you don’t go after a breakthrough.

[nobody75]

And what about taking out cities? The city war is already in full swing...
Sincerely

[futurohunter]

nobody75
And what about taking out cities?

Tactical nuclear weapons are powerless in front of the "cities". Yes, and the same notorious Azovstal could withstand a strike by tactical nuclear weapons

[nobody75]

Excuse me, has anyone checked this?
Sincerely

[futurohunter]

nobody75
For a long time, everything has been verified over the years of nuclear tests and with the help of various types of simulations. And in general, colleague, study the materiel. There is a lot of information on nuclear weapons in the public domain. I recommend the book "Nuclear War. All Doomsday Scenarios"

[nobody75]

Models in the studio! I actually have my own. They say that "the end of the world" will not happen. There will be an end to "Ukraine" ...
Sincerely

[futurohunter]

nobody75
Models in the studio!

I showed you one of the books...
And with a general vigorous war, there will be an end not only to "Ukraine", but in general to the largest and most developed states in the world ... World War II will nervously smoke on the sidelines ...
And you, before talking about your "models", read all the same special literature

[nobody75]

Why were OTRK created? Do you understand the difference between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons? Why are you so sorry for the Polish soldiers who want to enter western Ukraine?
Sincerely

[futurohunter]

Yes, I do not care Pshekov martinet. It's just that you, apparently, do not understand that there is a psychological barrier to the use of nuclear weapons in general. That is why it has never been used by anyone after 1945. Where a few kilotons are thrown, hundreds of them will soon be thrown - the American B61 thermonuclear bomb, which, by the way, is also considered tactical nuclear weapons, has a yield of up to 340 kilotons. And ... it started. Vigorous loaves will be thrown at each other by all and sundry. And things will also come to strategic nuclear weapons (it doesn’t matter who will use it first) - there will always be reasons. You just don't understand, apparently, why even US presidents fired generals. who proposed the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Korea, Vietnam and other places. By the way, the USSR also planned the use of tactical nuclear weapons four times (2 times in the Middle East, during the Caribbean and Indonesian crises) - and each time they refused. In your opinion, were the rulers of the USSR and the USA at that time fools or something? High-precision weapons allow you to solve the same tasks, but not with the same consequences.

[futurohunter]

The first OTRKs were also created with high-explosive and chemical charges. But the accuracy of the missiles of that time was extremely low - the deviation could reach 3 km, therefore, in our country and in the USA, it was supposed to use nuclear warheads. In the 60s, high-precision guided weapons appeared and the need for tactical nuclear weapons disappeared. It creates too many problems. But, the genie has already been launched, and therefore the troops were trained in combat with the use of nuclear weapons and in the conditions of the use of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons in any form were already clear to politicians at that time, therefore, nuclear weapons remained a weapon of retaliation. By the way, if at first the USSR opposed nuclear weapons (because our potential was less than the American one), then later the United States began to oppose nuclear weapons, because the "prospect" of a retaliatory strike strongly tied their hands. Once again I urge you to read the literature, in particular, the concept of the use of nuclear weapons in different countries. Everywhere (including India, Pakistan and North Korea) it is considered (regardless of the type of nuclear weapons) exclusively as a defensive

[nobody75]

"Psychological barrier", "political consequences"... Don't you think that this is not about mathematical modeling? If you remember, there was such an Iran-Iraq war, during which WMD was used ... Did anyone intervene? Who told you that in the event of the destruction of Lviv, the Americans or the Britons would use nuclear weapons?
Sincerely

[futurohunter]

Good. I'll ask questions. Why didn't the Amy use nuclear weapons during the Korean War? In Vietnam? Although there were specialists in nuclear weapons in the am. troops, and one even almost got captured. Why didn't the USSR bomb Israel? Why didn't India and Pakistan exchange "gifts"? About WMP. This includes not only nuclear weapons, but also chemical and biological ones. Chemical was used in the First World War, and, despite all the conventions, was used in various wars after that. Biological ... seems to be used against the whole world now. But nuclear weapons are completely incomparable with them in terms of their destructive consequences, as well as the horrors and other negative emotions that are associated with it.
About Iran and Iraq. Iran has long been crumbling a loaf because of its vigorous program. And they started the war with Iraq in general, accusing it of creating WMD.
Nashchot Lvov. We don't know yet what will happen next. B61 bombs have been delivered to NATO countries. And NATO troops conducted exercises on the use of nuclear weapons

[nobody75]

In Korea, they did not use it because the war in Korea was started by the Vice-King of Japan, Douglas MacArthur. Roosevelt's team loved him for his presidential ambitions. By the way, he wanted to use nuclear weapons, but he was expelled earlier.
In Vietnam, preference was given to chemical weapons and napalm, since the entire territory of Vietnam is shot from the sea.
Sincerely

[futurohunter]

Nevertheless ... If I'm not mistaken, during the Tet offensive in Vietnam, one of the generals suggested bombing the jungle. But he was kicked out by the President of the United States, either Eisenhower or Johnson. I do not remember the name of this general now. Moreover, with the number of bombs that were constantly falling on the jungle, a vigorous explosion would not have been particularly noticeable from the outside. There was no satellite reconnaissance yet. Regarding the shooting through the territory of Vietnam - what are you talking about ??? Nothing was shot through there, but aircraft were flying. Artillery was used exclusively on the battlefield. Chemical weapons were used to make the jungle "grow bald" and make the partisans visible from the air. Well, napalm worked well in areas. High-explosive fragmentation bombs in the jungle are not very effective, but napalm could flood the area

[nobody75]

Regarding the shooting through the territory of Vietnam - what are you talking about ???

In 1967, a group of art ships OG 70.8 was formed. It included the battleship New Jersey.
Sincerely

[futurohunter]

Interesting... Though I don't think shooting suitcases into the jungle is any more effective than throwing tons of them with a B-52. There was more sense from attack aircraft and front-line bombers, although they suffered heavy losses. And, as far as I understand, no New Jersey would have reached the airfields in the interior of Vietnam. Aviation did not reach, but you are talking about battleships ... Rather, maybe the goal of such a group was a blockade of shipping

[nobody75]

I'm not talking about this ... This same battleship completed over 400 fire missions. I spent 5000-plus shells of 406 mm! And there is always more sense from art than from aviation.
Sincerely

[futurohunter]

Any artillery has a shorter range than aviation ... It is incorrect to compare artillery and aviation. Each type of weapon has its own tasks. Arta is a melee weapon. Aviation, rather distant. Artoo cannot be quickly relocated. An airplane or helicopter flies very fast. Guided aircraft weapons are always more accurate (although there are also adjustable projectiles). A group of aircraft in one run can dump more on the enemy than an artillery battery. Art is cheaper, yes. But aviation solves such problems that art cannot cope with

[nobody75]

Comparing art and aviation is incorrect

And why did Basil Liddell Gartt compare when he analyzed the "blitzkrieg"?

[futurohunter]

What years was that? Arta has changed little since then, but aviation aviation has advanced at a gigantic pace. By the way, weapons of gigantic calibers have practically disappeared - they were supplanted by aircraft and missiles.

[nobody75]

That is, how little is it? Actively - rockets, shells with bottom afterburning, guided shells - is that not enough?
Sincerely

[futurohunter]

Active-reactive appeared during the Second World War. Yes, they fly further, but they carry less explosives, and the greater the firing range of an unguided projectile, the lower the accuracy. Guided projectiles can only be used in good weather, and guided missiles compete with them.
Progress cannot be compared at all. During this time, aviation has gone from rag biplanes with machine guns to supersonic, almost spacecraft with a practically unlimited flight range, with weapons of almost unlimited range, a powerful radar and electronic warfare equipment and a "smart" automated board that does a significant part of the work for the pilot.
How much does arta shoot? Ordinary shells - a maximum of 30 km, even super-duper-active-reactive - a maximum of 70 km. For aviation, this is just a little fly away from the airfield. How much explosives can an artillery battery ship in 5 minutes of firing? An air squadron will unload more in one run!
I'm not against art)) It's just that each weapon has its own place on the battlefield. Even a crossbow)) just don’t compare it with a machine gun

[futurohunter]

So that you are not offended by the art, I propose a symbiosis))) We shoot with an active-reactive corrected projectile at a target that is illuminated by a laser from a drone

[futurohunter]

The Amams were lucky that their opponents did not have missile boats, submarines, or even Komet-KS. I would have looked then how they shot ... In the "clear sky" anyone can fight ...

[futurohunter]

I wrote about battleships in the post above))

[futurohunter]

spirit
Tactical nuclear weapons would be effective

Are you a big specialist in nuclear weapons? Do you at least know the reasons why after 1945 it was never used, although many hands itched to use it? And even US presidents fired generals who seriously insisted on its use. In fact, there is not a single task on the battlefield that would require tactical nuclear weapons. And the consequences of its use are so bad (primarily for the user) that this should definitely not be done. What breakthrough are you talking about? Do you want to irradiate the soldiers? Are they disposable? And those who "buried" can also "envy the dead"

[nobody75]

In fact, there is not a single task on the battlefield that would require tactical nuclear weapons

You with this in the General Staff! Or to the developers of OTRK! With a concert!
Sincerely

[futurohunter]

nobody75
And you ask them. They will tell you the same thing that I wrote

[navycat777]

They will say that the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield is a chic thing! And they would like to use it, but it stops the huge political negativity for the country that has begun to use tactical nuclear weapons. Now, if someone were the first to create a precedent for the use of, for example, an artillery shell with tactical nuclear weapons, this would untie the hands of the Pentagon. Actually, all his gestures and conversations are connected with this, the legalization of micronuclear charges on the battlefield.

[futurohunter]

You probably have a poor idea of ​​what nuclear weapons are in general, and how even technically difficult it is to use. There is even the possibility of a charge failure (this happened in tests). But even a crashed warhead found by enemies will create a lot of problems for the one who released it. About "micronuclear charges". The "weakest" charge of the W-54 Davy Crockett had a capacity of 18 tons. This is a lot. There are no such bombs and "conventional" warheads. And now the weakest charges have a yield of 2,5 kilotons. Plus radioactive contamination of the area. And this means that their troops in the affected area will be able to operate no earlier than in 1-2 days. Nuclear weapons are very expensive and difficult to maintain. And they can be hit by the enemy, even before the moment of application. And this can also create problems for their troops. Nuclear charges on the battlefield can fall into the hands of the enemy. And some thread of a hothead, like you, may be tempted to arbitrarily use tactical nuclear weapons (just don’t tell me about codes and orders))) In short, more trouble with this tactical nuclear weapons ...

[navycat777]

You probably have never dealt with the problem of ensuring the reliability of ammunition, otherwise you would not have written this. In warehouses, we probably have shells for 2,5 kt. But a large nomenclature was developed for all countries, starting from 0,04 kt. Radioactive contamination of the area allows military columns to pass within a few hours after application.

With the massive use of tactical nuclear weapons on both sides, the hit of one unit of tactical nuclear weapons will be fatal and it will be forced to capitulate :))
Yes, I agree with you when the United States uses artillery ammunition with tactical nuclear weapons, the president will not immediately decide to use such weapons by us in order to avoid possible incidents with losses and other inconveniences :)) The situation will be similar to the one that develops with NWO, fight on a quarter.
Yes, there are many problems with this weapon, and indeed there are many problems with weapons, they are dangerous)

[futurohunter]

Personally, I have not heard that we have anything less than 2,5 kilotons. But these are rather sabotage bombs, not rockets and shells.
"Massive use of tactical nuclear weapons on both sides" is very difficult to imagine. I think that in this case the troops will hide in every possible way, because whoever does not hide is doomed, and the fighting will "freeze" for a while until the "mutual applause" stops. Well, for about two more days after the end of the applause, the surviving troops will be buried in shelters. True, all kinds of aircraft are activated, including unmanned aircraft, which will search for and wet everything that looks like nuclear weapons carriers. The doctrine of Douai will prevail. Moreover, for various reasons, many air defense systems and MZA will not be able to operate, except that the surviving infantry with MANPADS

[navycat777]

Artillery shells of caliber 152mm (2,5kt) were previously available. See photo. Also, the Russian troops use the Malka caliber 203mm in the SVO, for which there were also several types of nuclear projectiles. A provocation with nuclear weapons is possible and is intended to get the use of tactical nuclear weapons off the ground. With legalization, thus. Nuclear weapons will immediately show a huge distance between countries that own and do not own nuclear weapons

I doubt that there will be an immediate escalation of the conflict if low-power tactical nuclear weapons are used. Answers will be verified on pharmaceutical scales, especially since the United States has B61 bombs with adjustable power. Online mods.

[futurohunter]

I saw these shells ... live, like Peonies and Malks (in action). As for the B61... These are too powerful bombs. There were too many precedents in the history of nuclear weapons to gasp. And not only in the USSR and the USA. They didn't gasp. With any use of nuclear weapons of any power, all treaties and agreements, explicit and implicit, go to hell. And he who threw kilotons "somewhere out there" can receive megatons in return to his house

[navycat777]

As I already wrote, the bomb has undergone modernization and has a variable power: "B61 is a bomb with a variable charge power, called the "Wide Charge Option" (English FUFO, Full Fuzing Option), or "Dial-a-yield". On modifications 3, 4 and 10 can be set to 0,3, 1,5, 5, 10, 60, 80 or 170 kilotons"

[futurohunter]

However, even with minimal power, this weapon is very powerful, with a lot of side effects (affecting factors). And there are not so many objects for which it would be expedient to apply it. Another major damaging factor is the psycho-documental one. And not only among the enemy, but also among their own troops, as well as among the civilian population. By the way, this year a scientific work on this topic was defended.

[futurohunter]

In fact, it is most expedient to use not nuclear shells (shooting sparrows from cannons), but short-range cruise and ballistic missiles, and fighter-bombers with atomic bombs

[futurohunter]

I decided to fantasize further. Airfields of front-line aviation will also be quickly dealt with nuclear strikes, because they may be carriers of nuclear weapons. Planes will begin to take off from the rear, and then long-range aviation will also be used. Soon, someone will want to fuck with logistics and "decision centers", and medium-range cruise missiles (such as Caliber and Tomahawks) will be used. And there it is not far to strategic weapons and "killers" of cities. This is how a small mess with a couple of atomic bombs and shells will go into a blazing planet

[futurohunter]

One more question. Why does the West need all this hype that "Russia will use nuclear weapons"? They have taken so many sanctions that there is nowhere else to go - science fiction writers need to be attracted. So why do they need it? Why do they need this script?

[futurohunter]

I think that the use of any nuclear weapons by "Ukrainian troops" (real ammunition, not dummies) on our troops, the President will give the order to strike Britain, France and the United States. For it’s a no brainer whose ammunition it is. And I think American analysts have already reported this

[kor1vet1974]

American experts are considering the "sudden collapse" of the Russian army.

Even so, what the hell? If the kidneys fail, "Essentuki" will not help.

[iouris]

The world is global. I think that the problem of the use of nuclear weapons "in the world", and not in Ukraine, should be considered. And what will happen if "arrivals" begin in the United States? The world is global.

[APASUS]

The Institute for the Study of Military Conflicts of the United States called the condition for the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine

Well done Americans in formulating the question. Why tactical nuclear weapons, but there are also strategic nuclear forces? And everything is simple, because exactly how tactical weapons can be faked with a dirty bomb, shout and convince the whole world about Russian monsters.

[Sergey Averchenkov]

Because tactical will not get them. But the use of tactical calls for a strategic.

[rocket757]

The Institute for the Study of Military Conflicts of the United States called the condition for the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine

. In general, it is unlikely that it will, or rather it WILL NOT, until the GATOshchka climbs specifically, i.e. will not start a war against Russia.

[komvap]

Тн "Ukraine" Russian land.
Only a non-Russian can plan and hit her with atomic or radiological weapons ..

[nobody75]

Polish troops enter the Lvov region. Your actions?
Sincerely

[Two]

Psheks or Tribaltic extinctions will climb, and the "irreparable" will happen!

[Bykov.]

Who is talking about what, but these people are all pouring slop into their ears about a nuclear bomb, croaking.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

now something else is interesting, two dry cargo ships with grain left Odessa

[ximkim]

Quote from uprun

I won’t be surprised if the West says in the spring that the regime of green beans is somehow not entirely democratic ...... though there has long been no freedom of the media, parties and other democratic crap, with the exception of LGBT ....., but who cares .....

He won’t say, because they will have to come up with something - why did they help, and then they left Ukraine?
Plus, this war helps: the Kremlin steps on a rake, reduces the indigenous population of the Russian Federation, does not invest in development, only export over the hill and on the Christmas tree, hold on to the Putin regime.

[Ulan.1812]

Shaw.. again? Gentlemen, it's time to understand that we will use nuclear weapons if you directly climb your troops on us.
So you better be quiet. You will be more whole.

[gromit]

Fire plan.
Weapons and money will give Ukraine enough to hold the defense, but not enough to defeat the Russian Federation.
Together we will slowly flounder in this bloody puddle for the amusement of the whole world.
Even if people finally come to what sewer they got into, they will not be able to get out. What
will publicly speak about the senselessness of the defense of Ukraine or the senselessness of such protection of the Russian-speaking residents of Donbass

[futurohunter]

It is obvious that even among the enemies there are sober-minded people. Not propagandists, but real experts who understand what is happening and are able to give an adequate assessment of the situation. Moreover, all experts have long understood that nuclear weapons are not a weapon for wars, especially local ones.

[Mister who]

Nonsense, why use nuclear weapons not in a critical situation. I think Westerners would use it if they could. Well, to the extreme, if anything suddenly, there are non-nuclear bombs comparable in power to nuclear weapons)

[nobody75]

Nonsense, why use nuclear weapons not in a critical situation

To reduce the consumption of ammunition and increase the pace of the operation.
Sincerely

[Mister who]

Ammunition has been in storage since what year, why dispose of it, when there is reconciliation, the army should work conditionally for profit in the new conditions, just like the American one, you need to adopt their model. The Union was not afraid to mess with it, and that was the ratio of 60% of the capital of the world to 40% of the social camp! Weapons in storage are a loss, you need to fight for sales markets. Under the UNION, an army that does not fight is not an army they said.

[nobody75]

Have you counted trains, trucks, art warehouses?
Sincerely

[Mister who]

Ants are not considered in big politics, the main thing is the result, the rest is a consumable, there is an expense, there is an income, jobs, the movement of the economy, this is the main thing, better than stagnation, America adopts our and other experience and makes money on it, you need to adopt this experience! The rest is trifles. Fate is not considered from above, we are the gears of a system that should work, not stand still. In the capital world, everything should spin. Morality and everything else is superfluous.

[Mister who]

You misunderstood why use nuclear weapons and lose your image in the international arena and allow yourself to be poked when there are bombs that are not inferior in power to non-nuclear nuclear weapons. From here conclusions of foreigners seem nonsense. Use nuclear weapons, God forbid, ordinary ones, only dad is a bomb))) amers have the most powerful mom bomb, ours is more powerful, hence the name dad. Only drop in the field, not a profitable business, not a result. Each projectile has its own target, and if there is no target, then there is no need to use it. Not for peace. Nonsense.

[futurohunter]

It's not even about the power of the weapon. The task of the weapon is to hit targets on the battlefield. The better a weapon does this, the more effective it is. A dart fired from a drone that accurately hits an ISIS leader (ozvrf) can be much more effective than a multi-ton bomb that destroyed a neighborhood but missed its target

[nobody75]

Image - nothing! YAO - everything!!! And the winners are not judged.
Sincerely

[futurohunter]

nobody75
"dear" ... here you would be attacked using tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield ... It would be interesting how they would talk ... If they would talk at all. I repeat: before discussing such complex topics, read at least special literature ...

[nobody75]

I did not write anything about the attack "on the battlefield". What prevents the use of nuclear weapons instead of a raid on western Ukraine? What will the supply lines of the Armed Forces of Ukraine look like then? Do you think that stupid people served in the General Staff of the USSR?
Sincerely

[futurohunter]

The Westerners could not apply in 1945-49, because it would not have saved them from defeat. After 1949 they could not apply, because they would have received an "answer". Nuclear weapons are a weapon for maintaining peace, not war. For example, Pakistan's nuclear weapons were made solely to ... prevent the use of nuclear weapons by India. The idea of ​​mutually assured destruction lies at the heart of the modern concept of non-use of nuclear weapons in any form.

[nobody75]

Who are the "Westerners"? All and sundry publish plans for the bombing of cities in the USSR. I will disappoint you, drawing up such plans is a routine staff work. What makes you think that these plans were not put into action, because they were afraid of defeat?
Sincerely