Russia is ready to use “all its means” of defense, including nuclear ones, to “protect itself”, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned during his address to the Russian nation. The next day, Ramzan Kadyrov, the leader of the Russian region of Chechnya, clarified the threat. According to him, Moscow should consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
These low-yield atomic bombs (1 to 100 kilotons) are far less destructive than strategic bombs at the heart of deterrence whose power is counted in megatons. But the threat remains significant. As a reminder, the ones that the Americans sent to Japan in 1945 had a yield of 12 kilotons. Its zone of destruction is limited to a perimeter of the order of a large city in France.
“Pre-Strategic” Weapons
On the other hand, any explosive device (bombs, shells or missiles) can be fitted with a nuclear warhead and turned into tactical nukes with a range limited to 500 kilometers versus thousands for a ballistic bomb. It is a weapon designed to be used on the battlefield by armed forces overwhelmed by the power of their adversary.
These devices were created in the 1950s to have weapons of intimidation rather than deterrence. Various countries have produced them to distinguish between these two notions, but none have ever used them, even if during the Cold War some were tempted to do so. The Americans and the Russians have thousands of them. While these countries distinguish between tactical and strategic bombs, France stopped doing so in the 1970s. It considers them all “pre-strategic” weapons that are part of deterrence.
“We quickly realized that its use was not manageable. These bombs destroy everything in an area of several tens of square kilometers, humans, nature, infrastructure and communication networks. But also, the area will be contaminated with radiation for a long time. and will prevent anyone from entering it”, explains Colonel Goya
The “nuclear devil”
The other aspect of the use of these bombs is political. Sending a nuclear bomb, even tactically, would be considered a nuclear attack by all state organizations, from the UN to NATO. The response would be immediate against the aggressor.
“The distinction between tactical and strategic in terms of power or use makes no sense, they are still nuclear bombs and their use will have dramatic consequences not only on the ground and at an international level,” Colonel Michael Goya explains to BFM Business. .
Could the Russians use this weapon as Ramzan Kadyrov advises Vladimir Putin? The Chechen leader does not appear to be a brilliant strategist, and furthermore, Russia prefers nuclear hints to clear and precise threats.
For General Jean-Paul Paloméros, former Chief of Staff of the Air Force and former Supreme Commander of NATO, this use would cause a global disaster.
David Petraeus, a former four-star general in the US Army and former director of the CIA, is very precise about the consequences of a nuclear attack with a bomb, however small.
“We would respond with NATO eliminating all Russian conventional forces that we can see on Ukrainian territory and annexed Crimea and all Russian ships in the Black Sea will be sunk.” The message is clear.
Source: BFM TV
