Zelensky sees a possible nuclear attack from Russia latent 0:53
(CNN) --
With his forces retreating in Ukraine, international allies expressing concern, and citizens at home fleeing "partial mobilization," Russia's President Vladimir Putin has resorted to the threat of nuclear weapons, reigniting fears. Westerners of an atomic apocalypse.
"The territorial integrity of our motherland, our independence and our freedom will be guaranteed. I stress this again, with all the means at our disposal," Putin said in a speech last week.
He added that "those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the prevailing winds can turn in their direction."
So how concerned should we be?
In this article, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former British Army officer and former Commander of the UK and NATO's Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Forces, explains the crucial differences between "tactical" and "tactical" weapons. strategic," and why all-out nuclear war is unlikely to happen any time soon.
The opinions expressed in this article are his own.
CNN:
What is the difference between a "strategic" and a "tactical" nuclear weapon?
advertising
De Bretton-Gordon:
It's all about scale.
Strategic nuclear weapons are basically the apocalypse.
Russia and the West (including the US, UK and France) each have nearly 6,000 warheads, according to the Federation of Nuclear Scientists, which is enough to change the planet as we know it.
This is called Mutual Assured Destruction, with the rather tongue-in-cheek acronym MAD.
These warheads are installed on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that can travel thousands of kilometers and are aimed at key locations and cities in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia.
Tactical nuclear weapons, meanwhile, are much smaller warheads, with an explosive power of up to 100 kilotons of dynamite, rather than the 1,000 kilotons of strategic warheads.
That said, tactical nukes are still capable of causing enormous damage, and if fired at a nuclear power plant – for example, the one in Zaporizhia in southern Ukraine – they could create a chain reaction and contamination of the same magnitude. than a nuclear attack.
What are tactical nukes and what would happen if Russia deployed one?
CNN: What state are Russia's nuclear weapons in?
De Bretton-Gordon:
It's hard to know for sure, but I guess Russia's strategic weapons and ICBMs are probably in good shape and always ready.
Russia's strategic nuclear weapons are the only ones that give it military parity with the US and NATO, so I think they will be well taken care of.
But that's probably not the case for tactical weapons.
The warheads and missiles are probably in reasonable condition, but the vehicles on which they are mounted are, I believe and know from a good source, in poor condition.
Judging by the state of the rest of the Russian Army equipment on display in Ukraine, that's a fair guess.
These launchers will likely have to travel hundreds of kilometers to reach a position where they can attack Ukraine, as they only have a range of up to 500 kilometers (310 miles).
But from a mechanical perspective it is unlikely, in my opinion, that they will go that far.
Furthermore, these weapons are likely to rely on microprocessors and other high-tech components that are in very short supply in Russia, given international sanctions and Russia's extensive use of precision-guided missiles, which also use these parts.
CNN: What about the attacks on nuclear stations?
From Bretton-Gordon:
As Putin's conventional warfare is having problems in the Ukraine, I think the Russians will increasingly resort to unconventional warfare.
The goal is to attack civilians rather than enemy forces.
This is manifested by attacks on hospitals, schools and "dangerous" infrastructure, such as chemical plants and nuclear power plants.
If attacked, they can become improvised chemical or nuclear weapons.
The Russians hope that if the Ukrainian people surrender, the military will quickly follow, which is a very wrong assumption in my opinion: both are showing much more mettle than the Russians.
We have seen several occasions in Ukraine where Russian forces appear to deliberately bomb chemical factories to cause toxic pollution.
Although bombing these plants would not create a nuclear explosion similar to a weapon detonation, it could spread radioactive debris and contaminate local water supplies.
Current weather conditions indicate that all this contamination would also be directed towards western Europe.
This could be seen as an attack on NATO and trigger Article 5 – where an attack on one ally is considered an attack on all allies – allowing NATO to directly strike back at Russia.
Hopefully this possibility is something that the Russian high command fully acknowledges.
CNN: What is the probability of these nuclear scenarios?
De Bretton-Gordon:
In my opinion, the use of strategic nuclear weapons is extremely unlikely.
That is a war that no one can win, and at the moment it seems unlikely that this regional conflict in Europe will lead to a global nuclear war, which could destroy the planet for many generations.
I am sure that there are checks and balances in the Kremlin, as there are in the White House and at 10 Downing Street, to ensure that we are not thrown into a global nuclear conflict on a whim.
I believe that Putin's tactical nukes are unusable.
Even if his vehicles work, the moment they start their engines to move they will be picked up by US and NATO intelligence.
I hope that the private discussions that the Joe Biden and Putin administrations have apparently been having are of the "you move your tactical nukes and NATO will take them out with long-range precision guided missiles" kind of thing.
This appears to be the case from what Jake Sullivan, the US National Security Adviser in the White House, revealed over the weekend.
The most likely nuclear scenario is, in my opinion, a Russian attack on a nuclear power plant in Ukraine.
This could have an effect similar to that of a tactical nuclear explosion, but it would be easier for the Russians, who accuse Ukraine of deliberately bombing its own plants, to deny.
Only Russia has tactical nuclear weapons in this conflict, so it would be undeniable, if they were used, that Russia is responsible, thus triggering NATO action.
So degraded are Russia's conventional forces that they would likely be quickly outmatched by NATO forces if it came to that, which even, with Putin's other failings, he presumably realizes.
CNN: What can we learn from Russia's weapons manual in Syria?
De Bretton-Gordon:
I think the Russians developed their unconventional warfare tactics in Syria.
(Russian forces entered Syria's long-running civil war in 2015, bolstering the regime of allied President Bashar al-Assad.)
I don't think Assad would still be in power if he hadn't used chemical weapons.
The massive nerve agent attack on August 21, 2013, in Ghouta, prevented the rebels from invading Damascus.
The conventional four-year siege of Aleppo ended thanks to multiple chlorine attacks.
And it does not seem that Putin has any morals or scruples.
Russia attacked hospitals and schools in Syria, which it is repeating again in Ukraine.
Unconventional warfare is aimed at breaking civilians' will to resist, and Putin seems happy to use any means and weapon to do so.
CNN: To what extent does this depend on Putin's decision?
From Bretton-Gordon:
These weapons are doctrinally controlled at the highest levels and would require Putin to make a strategic strike decision.
However, Soviet doctrine, which the Russians still seem to follow, allows local commanders to use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent defeat or loss of Russian territory.
The attempted annexation of four districts through the current sham referendums makes the probability of tactical use very high, if these places are attacked.
Although one still hopes that local commanders will first submit to Putin before pressing their own equivalent of a red button.
Western military sources say Putin is engaging in hand-to-hand battle and appears to be giving orders to lower-level commanders.
This is extraordinary – Putin seems only now to have lost faith in his generals after Ukraine recaptured large swaths of the northeast – and suggests a broken command and control system, and a president who does not trust his generals.
(That said, while Russian military command on the ground appears to be failing, there is no indication that Putin's grip on the Kremlin is faltering.)
Even in an attack on a power plant one assumes that Putin would be involved, since the West would probably interpret it as an improvised nuclear weapon and act accordingly.
CNN: How should the West respond now and in the event of a nuclear attack?
From Bretton-Gordon: The
West must make it absolutely clear to Putin that any use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons is a true red line.
That said, I don't think an all-out nuclear war is likely.
NATO must make it clear that it will eliminate Russia's tactical nukes if they move from their current locations to a position where they could threaten Ukraine, and it must also make it clear that any deliberate attack on nuclear power plants will require an equal and greater response. by NATO.
This is the time to call Putin's bluff.
He is hanging by the tips of his fingers, and we must not give him any chance to regain control of him.
Russia's forces are now so degraded that they are no match for NATO and we must now negotiate, with this in mind, from this position of strength.
Nuclear WeaponsNuclear AttackWar UkraineRussian News