Will escalation lead to nuclear war?
Russia’s nuclear weapons might not work?
If the world has learned anything from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine it’s that the Russian military is not the well-equipped and well-trained force that most Western military analysts have feared since the fall of the Soviet Union.
The military is falling apart
The Russian military has performed poorly and eleven months of war has shown that much of its equipment was not properly stored or maintained over the last 20 years. From exploding vehicle tires to rotten AK-47s, nothing in the Russian arsenal seems to have been properly maintained—does that also apply to their nukes?
Maintaining nuclear weapons is difficult
Russia currently has a standing stockpile of 5977 warheads with about 1500 currently deployed according to the BBC and maintaining such a huge stockpile is difficult.
America’s maintenance numbers
The United States in 2021 alone spent $44.2 billion dollars on maintenance while Russia spent a mere $8.6 billion according to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
How can Russia keep up?
How can a nation like Russia—which has far more nuclear weapons than the United States—keep its nuclear maintenance on a budget just one-fifth of its American competitor?
Failed test after failed test
There is some evidence that Russia’s nuclear weapons just don’t work. Back in November 2022 Putin tried and failed to test the country’s new Poseidon torpedo according to an unnamed US official.
The Kremlin admits to more failed tests
In December 2022, the Kremlin admitted to another failed missile launch, this time of its Bulava intercontinental missile.
Technical malfunction
“It has been established,” a Russian Defense Ministry spokesman said, “that the missile’s first two stages worked as normal, but there was a technical malfunction at the next, third, stage of the trajectory.”
Even if they do work, what would Putin target?
Putin’s biggest problem with using a nuclear weapon would be choosing a target that could achieve his strategic goals, but the war in Ukraine has no real targets valuable enough to outweigh the negatives of dropping a nuke.
Escalating wouldn’t make sense
Escalating directly to using a larger bomb against a Ukranian city wouldn’t make strategic sense which leaves Putin with tactical battlefield nukes. But that choice has its own drawbacks.
Tactical nukes are strategically useless
“The Ukrainian army is not concentrated enough in one location to merit so much striking power,” Axios journalist Robert Kelly noted, adding that “any meaningful Ukrainian military target can be sufficiently struck with Russian conventional weapons.”
Even a small bomb would cause massive destruction.
“Even a small battlefield or tactical nuclear weapon – less than five kilotons in yield – would have massive destructive effects,” according to Kelly.
The Russian army could be affected
If Putin did decide that use a tactical or battlefield nuclear device it would almost certainly affect Russian troops, and that could be enough to turn off Moscow.
Is it worth the geopolitical risk?
The real worry for Putin isn’t picking a target or killing his own troops, it’s deciphering the major geopolitical blowback he might face if he decides to use nukes in Ukraine.
Global backlash
“A nuclear strike – raising the terrifying prospect of normalizing nuclear weapons use in future wars – would scare even the most hardened anti-western regimes,” Kelly noted.
Putin said he wouldn’t use them
During a conference at the end of October 2022, Putin stated that he had no plans to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine despite his many warnings and red lines.
Putin’s comments
“We see no need [to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine],” Putin said, “there is no point in that, neither political, nor military.”
What is the likelihood Putin will use a nuke?
REFERENCE:
By: Miss Cherry May Timbol – Independent Reporter
You can support my work directly on Patreon
http://patreon.com/cherrymtimbol
Contact by mail: cherrymtimbol@newscats.org
Contact by mail: timbolcherrymay@gmail.com
