Boy, the Ukrainians seem to be kickin ass lately…

[Carnos Jax]

LOL, I got it too.

[Tiangou]

Carnos Jax wrote:
[quote=Tiangou]
My concern is that a military desperate to impress Putin with swift retribution and progress will move on to super-conventional weapons that can take out a small city in one blast or even tactical nukes.

This vvvvvv

kj wrote:
Putin hasn't used nukes yet because he wants to continue living. I think he'll continue to prefer living.

There are mini-nukes that they might feel comfortable using.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32572.pdf

Recent debates about U.S. nuclear weapons have questioned what role weapons with shorter ranges and lower yields can play in addressing emerging threats in Europe and Asia. These weapons, often referred to as nonstrategic nuclear weapons, have not been limited by past U.S.- Russian arms control agreements... While there are several ways to distinguish between strategic and nonstrategic nuclear weapons, most analysts consider nonstrategic weapons to be shorter-range delivery systems with lower-yield warheads that might attack troops or facilities on the battlefield. They have included nuclear mines; artillery; short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic missiles; cruise missiles; and gravity bombs. In contrast with the longer-range “strategic” nuclear weapons, these weapons had a lower profile in policy debates and arms control negotiations, possibly because they did not pose a direct threat to the continental United States. At the end of the 1980s, each nation still had thousands of these weapons deployed with their troops in the field, aboard naval vessels, and on aircraft...

Russia has revised its national security and military strategy several times in the past 20 years, with successive versions appearing to place a greater reliance on nuclear weapons. For example, the military doctrine issued in 1997 allowed for the use of nuclear weapons “in case of a threat to the existence of the Russian Federation.” The doctrine published in 2000 expanded the circumstances when Russia might use nuclear weapons to include attacks using weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies “as well as in response to large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation.” In mid-2009, when discussing the revision of Russia’s defense strategy that was expected late in 2009 or early 2010, Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Presidential Security Council, indicated that Russia would have the option to launch a “preemptive nuclear strike” against an aggressor “using conventional weapons in an all-out, regional, or even local war.”

[Carnos Jax]

Even the use of mini nukes would be a game changer. It would mean all rules are off the table. Pretty much guarantees even China and India would isolate Russia. There is no tactical scenario that would even justify militarily the use of such weapons in this particular war.

[kj]

Yeah I don't think he's the type to "go down with the ship", or martyr himself. He hasn't survived this long by doing reckless things. You could say the invasion was stupid, but he hasn't lost yet, and he was at least almost right that no one would do enough to stop him. Plus, if he was going to use them, I can't see any reason he wouldn't have already. That may just be me hoping though.

[Carnos Jax]

kj wrote: ...but he hasn't lost yet...

FWIW though, it is an inevitability for two reasons. Unmotivated Russian soldiers against very motivated Ukrainian citizens AND soldiers. Plus Russia doesn't have enough adequate/reliable/modern weapons. They are a paper tiger apparently, thanks to the greed and corruption of their leadership and societal elite, which hollowed out their military. The end is coming, and that means the end of Putin....the only question is when it will arrive.

[Ombligo]

Nobody gives them much notice, but I am far more concerned with a Pakistan/India flareup going nuclear than Russia lobbing one into Ukraine.

[Carnos Jax]

I have to agree.

[kj]

Yeah, I think you're right. I should have left the "he hasn't lost yet" out. I don't think he was crazy thinking he might get away with it though. Plus, I am hesitant to get behind the "he might use nukes thing", because some used that reasoning to argue against strong support of Ukraine (that it might provoke his use of nukes). Without that support, the eventual outcome would no doubt have been bad.

[August West]

There's those crazy azz thermo bombs that can destroy as city.

[gadje]

August West wrote:
There's those crazy azz thermo bombs that can destroy as city.

I hope it does not come to that.

If he really wanted to go crazy, he could have used on in Kyiv from the start.