What could happen next?

• Since he launched Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Putin has made numerous nuclear threats.
• Experts agree that there is a low risk of nuclear attack, but they are becoming more concerned.
• One expert told Insider that Russia’s use of nuclear weapons is directly tied to its fate on the battlefield.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made numerous very alarming nuclear threats since the beginning of Russia’s unprovoked War in Ukraine. Concerns are growing that he might resort to the unthinkable and order weapons of mass destruction.

Putin’s so-called “special operations” in Ukraine were launched in February. Putin stated that Russia remains one of the strongest nuclear states and warned that any enemy seeking to attack it would face defeat and serious consequences.

Putin, who claimed that Russia’s nuclear deterrent force had been placed on high alert days later, has continued reminding the world of Russia’s nuclear might over the past months.

Putin made a vague reference to nuclear weapons in September while pledging to defend Russia’s territorial integrity. He also stressed that this was not a joke. Later that month, Putin stated that the US use of nuclear weapons against Japan in World War II was a precedent and warned that Russia would protect its land using all means and forces at his disposal.

International leaders and institutions have criticised Putin for his repeated threats. They accuse him of nuclear saber-rattling. Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General, warned in August that the world is at risk. “one misunderstanding”Keep away from “nuclear extermination”.

Recently, President Joe Biden suggested that the risk of nuclear “Armageddon,” as the US has intimately communicated to Russia, is the greatest since 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. “catastrophic consequences” if nuclear weapons are used. 

While Russia watchers may suspect Putin of lying to stop Western support for Kyiv in his attempt to discredit it, top nuclear experts agree that Putin’s threats must be taken seriously.

Russia’s strategic and tactical nuclear weapons

Putin has made vague threats but has not stated whether or not he will use a nuclear weapon. However, military and nuclear weapons experts believe that Putin would be more likely to use a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine than a strategic one, even though the former is still an option.

Tactical and strategic nuclear weapons can only be used on the battlefield at a short range. Strategic weapons have higher explosive yields, so they are better suited for targets that are further from the frontlines.

Russia holds the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, with 5,997 warheads. However, approximately 1,500 of these are still active, according to the Federation of American Scientists’ latest assessment.

Russia has around 1,912 nuclear weapons tactically in its arsenal. It also maintains a fully operational nuclear trinity, which allows it to deliver nukes to the intended targets via land, air, and sea.

The explosive yield for a tactical nuclear weapon ranges from 10 to 100 Kilotons (a kiloton refers to the explosive force equivalent to 1,000 tons TNT). However, Russia also has low-yield nuclear weapons that are below one Kilotons.

These weapons are still extremely powerful. Although the atomic bomb that was dropped by the US on Nagasaki during World War II produced an explosive yield of only 21 kilotons, it still killed approximately 140,000 people. There are four-times more powerful tactical nuclear weapons. 

Daryl Kimball, executive Director of the Arms Control Association (ACA), spoke out about tactical nuclear weapons during a webinar on Tuesday hosted by his organization. 

Go nuclear to demonstrate your resolve

Pavel Podvig is a senior researcher at UN Institute for Disarmament Research and does not believe Russia, despite Putin’s rhetoric, is at this point close to breaking the atomic ban, potentially alienating its remaining ally, and establishing its international status as a pariah.

“There is a consensus among those who have been looking at all of this that the battlefield usage of nuclear weapons seems very unlikely,” Podvig said to Insider from Geneva. “This is not the kind of war.”

The forces of Ukraine are dispersed so there is no chance to strike thousands of soldiers. Podvig stated that a tactical nuclear weapon would destroy approximately a dozen tanks with a single attack. This would create logistical problems for a military which struggled to feed its own troops, at least in the early days.

You need to coordinate. He said that you need to manage all contamination. “It’s hard.”

Even if the intent of such a strike were to simply demonstrate Russia’s resolve and willingness to escalate, Podvig does not think it would achieve that with a battlefield nuke — it could in fact be read as Moscow being hesitant. He said that if the Kremlin wanted an effective demonstration, it would need to be “shocking”, like nuking an entire town.

“It won’t be enough to have an explosive over the Black Sea somewhere to deliver shock. You really would have to kill a lot of people — we are talking about tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people,” he said. “And that would be done in cold blood.”

Putin could be undermined at home by the devastation caused nuclear weapons. On the basis of Ukraine shares a shared historyHe could cause a backlash if he were to supervise, using nuclear force, the destruction or mass killing of Ukrainians. He has called them “one people” and said they are Russians. However, such sentiments have not stopped other wartime atrocities.

Putin can decide whether or not to use a nuclear weapon.

In 2020, Russia published a document called “Basic Principles of State Policy of Russia on Nuclear Deterrence,” that outlines its nuclear doctrine. The document states that nuclear weapons are decided by the Russian president.

“The Russian President, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces and he has the authority of directing the use of nukes,” according to the Congressional Research Service. 

Putin can decide if Russia uses a nuke. But letting one go is more complicated than pressing a button.

It is possible that Putin could refuse to order a nuclear strike if he so orders. There is no way to know whether anyone would be willing to stand against Putin’s leader. His opponents have a history involving death in violent ways or imprisonment. 

The entire process begins with a decision made by Putin. Hans M. Kristensen (director of the Nuclear Information Project at Federation of American Scientists), explained the details during Tuesday’s ACA webinar. He said, “But of course, just like in the United States the military must cooperate.”

Kristensen claimed that there is no red button Kristensen can press to send nuclear weapons flying. He also said that it would take longer for a tactical weapon to be used than a strategic one, as these weapons are not readily available.

Russia’s non strategic nukes are in “central storage” and must be taken out of their bunker before being transported to the launch units. Kristensen said that it is “reasonable to suppose” that Western intelligence would detect if this is happening given the many steps involved. According to recent reports, US intelligence has yet to see any evidence that Putin is making preparations to use nuclear weapons.

Some of these nukes could be unreliable due to their age and storage time.

Pavel Baev (a military researcher who worked previously for the Soviet defense minister) said that the majority of the warheads kept there are old. “It is difficult to determine how appropriate they are without testing, as many of them are past their expiration dates.

Putin’s nuclear calculus

The document, released by Russia 2020, outlines four scenariosThis could lead to nuclear weapons being used: The use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies or conventional aggression that threatens Russia’s existence, the use or attempted use of weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons, the use or attempted use of nukes, or the use or threat of using nuclear weapons.

Putin’s threats to Ukraine suggest that he may, although the risk is low, disregard Russia’s nuclear doctrine and use a weapon to mass destruction to send a serious message to Ukraine’s Western allies. 

Although there is still some debate about whether Putin would use a nuclear weapon in extreme cases, there is widespread agreement that the Ukraine war has increased the risk of a nuclear disaster to levels not seen for decades.

Kristensen stated during Tuesday’s ACA webinar that he doesn’t believe Russia will use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. He stated that for this to happen, the situation would need to escalate to a “direct conflict between NATO and Russia”.

“That said,” he added, “They’ve certainly rattled and threatened something that seems like a scenario beyond what Russia declares its policy to be.” He also said that Russia would likely use a short-range nuclear missile to counter the Iskander nuclear-armed Iskander.

The risk of Putin using a nuke weapon in the near-term is “still low,” Andrea Kendall Taylor, an ex-senior intelligence officer who conducted strategic analysis on Russia for National Intelligence Council (2015-2018), stated. In late September, Insider reported this. But Kendall-Taylor also emphasized that Putin’s decision to annex four Ukrainian territories — declaring territories on the front lines of the war as part of Russia — “increased those risks.” 

“I worry now that the Ukrainians will reclaim territories Russia has annexed, and that this could lead to a deterioration in our security. [Putin]Russian claims. Given that he now feels so personally invested, the risk of him using a tactical bomber on the Ukrainian battlefield has gone up.” She continued, saying that Russia’s fate on that battlefield is directly tied to the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

Experts from Russia and the military agree that Putin will likely wait to see how his risky announcement of partial military mobilization turns out before considering something more extreme like the use a nuclear weapon.

In the meantime, Russia is more likely to engage in other escalatory steps — such as sabotaging infrastructure. Russia launched strikes against such targets in Ukraine this week, attacking Kyiv in the process. 

Putin would most likely use a tactical nuke weapon in Ukraine to “shock” the West and force Ukraine to surrender. According to an Institute for the Study of War Assessment. ISW stated that such attacks were unlikely to force Ukraine to surrender or the West to it, but would require huge gambles like the ones Putin has always refused to make.

The impossible is possible

The West and NATO are the key players in the response to Russia’s potential use of nuclear weapons. This is the most pressing question. 

Ukraine is not a nuclear country. But multiple countries in NATO, a 30-member military alliance that has supported Ukraine in its fight against Russia, have nuclear arsenals of their own — including the US. 

Together, the US and Russia have roughly 90% of all world’s nuclear warheads. They were both at the brink of nuclear war many times during Cold War. However, they managed to avoid a complete disaster.

While the Biden administration warned Russia that there could be severe consequences for nuclear weapons being used, it hasn’t gone into detail. Experts recommend not using nuclear weapons in the response.

“I don’t believe that a nuke response should be something the United States and its allies should consider. We should be on the side that might have a strong military response, but one which would remain conventional in nature,” Rose Gottemoeller said during ACA’s webinar. Rose Gottemoeller is a former State Department official responsible for arms control and nonproliferation. She was also a former deputy secretary-general of NATO. Gottemoeller stated that while Russia’s nuke attack could be targeted, the US could also respond by employing offensive cyber capabilities. 

Gottemoeller stated that “any such attack would have to be carefully designed to respond to an egregious attack against a Ukrainian target using nuclear weapons,” adding that “none of these options for military actions are desirable to NATO nor to the United States of America.”