Russian Strategic Nuclear Arms and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. What do they have in common with nuclear warheads and missiles?

Concerns have arisen that a nuclear attack on Ukraine is imminent after an accusation of bombast which is commonplace in both state-sanctioned television news and the Telegram messaging app. Even as the Kremlin has tried to assuage those fears in recent days, fears of a possible nuclear attack remain high.

In the documents it is spelled out as a preventive blow. We don’t. We, on the other hand, have formulated a retaliatory strike in our strategy,” Putin said.

WOLF: It seems strange, that we kind of dealt with the mutually assured destruction weapons (strategic nuclear weapons), but then there’s this whole subgroup (tactical nuclear weapons) that’s floating out there that countries don’t have a lot of knowledge about.

These warheads are fitted to Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) which can travel thousands of miles and are aimed at key sites and cities in the US, UK, France and Russia.

It is the reason you would need a tactical nuclear weapon that is shown with that view. I think that it will be dangerous to start thinking about weapons that are going to be used on the battlefield.

That said, tactical nuclear weapons could still create huge amounts of damage, and if fired at a nuclear power station – for example Zaporizhzhia in southern Ukraine – could create a chain reaction and contamination on a scale with a nuclear strike.

I assume that Russia’s strategic weapons and ICBMs are in good condition, though it is difficult to tell for certain. It is only Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons which now give it parity with the US and NATO militarily, so I expect them to be well looked after.

This may be the case for the tactical weapons. The warheads and missiles are probably in reasonable condition but the vehicles they are mounted on are, I believe and have on good authority, in poor condition. The rest of the Russian Army equipment on display in Ukranian is likely to be similar to this.

The scenarios of how the Russians could do it are very different. They could hit Russia with a warhead from a missile that was stationed over the border in Russia. A military base or a small city could be the targets. How much destruction — and lingering radiation — would result depends on factors including the size of the weapon and the winds. But even a small nuclear explosion could cause thousands of deaths and render a base or a downtown area uninhabitable for years.

Also, it is likely these weapons rely on microprocessors and other high-tech components which are in very short supply in Russia – given international sanctions and the heavy use of precision guide missiles by Russia, which also use these parts.

At the heart of this move is attacking civilians rather than opposition forces. This manifests itself with attacks on hospitals, schools and ‘hazardous’ infrastructure, like chemical plants and nuclear power stations. They can become chemical or nuclear weapons if attacked.

The Russian Warfare in Syria: The Case of the U.S. and the Confrontations with the Kremlin’s Cold War

The situation is complicated by the fact that there is no prospect of a diplomatic process to end the war. Ukraine is in no mood to talk after suffering an unprovoked invasion that has caused human carnage, especially as it now appears to have Russian troops on the run. Even though his control over the Russian media might allow him to spin a loss into a victory, Putin cannot afford a war that looks like anything other than victory.

Meteorological conditions at the moment indicate that all this contamination would also head west across Europe. If NATO was attacked by Russia, it would be a crime and cause NATO to return fire, which would enable it to destroy the entire Russian military.

De Bretton-Gordon: The use of strategic nuclear weapons is extremely unlikely in my opinion. This is a war nobody can win, and at the moment it doesn’t appear that this regional conflict will lead to a global nuclear war, which could destroy the planet for many generations.

I am sure the checks and balances are in place in the Kremlin, as they are at the White House and 10 Downing Street to make sure we are not plunged into global nuclear conflict on a whim.

Fuhrmann: Tactical nuclear weapons, to my knowledge, are not presently deployed. Russia would probably want to do this in a way that would be visible to the US through satellite imagery and other means.

De Bretton-Gordon: I believe the Russians developed their unconventional warfare tactics in Syria. (Russian forces entered Syria’s long civil war in 2015, bolstering ally President Bashar al-Assad’s regime). I do not believe Assad would still be in power had he not used chemical weapons.

The massive nerve agent attack on August 21, 2013 on Ghouta stopped the rebels overrunning Damascus. The four-year siege was ended by multiple chlorine attacks.

It looks like Putin does not have any morals. Hospitals and schools were attacked in Syria, and again in Ukranian. Unconventional warfare aims to break the will of civilians to resist, and Putin appears to be happy to use any means and weapons to achieve this.

A research scientist at the center for naval analysis has studied Russian nuclear doctrine and says that Russia decided to keep its tactical arsenal. The decision has been driven in large part by what the Russian military sees as a vast gap in conventional weapons technology.

The likelihood of tactical use in four districts that were attempted annexations is high if they are attacked. Though one still expects that local commanders would defer to Putin first before pressing their own equivalent of a red button.

Russian troops have withdrawn not only from the Kyiv area and around the country’s largest city, Kharkiv, but from a large part of the Kherson region. There are attacks on air force bases deep inside Russia this week. He put much of the country, especially border areas, on security alert recently, and fresh signs emerged Wednesday that Russian officials are strengthening border defensive positions.

Putin’s involvement in an attack on a power station would likely make the West view it as a nuclear weapon, so they would act accordingly.

US officials say that the primary utility would be a last-ditch effort by Mr. Putin to stop the Ukrainian counteroffensive. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe some of the most sensitive discussions inside the administration.

Matthew Kroenig, a Georgetown University professor of international relations, believes that the conflict is moving in a way that may push Putin into making that fateful choice. With Russia’s military forces reduced because of the war in Ukraine, he says, Putin is likely to be faced with more and more political pressure.

Biden’s comments about an inability to identify an off-ramp raises serious concerns that the long-standing mutual understanding may not be as assured as assumed. Putin’s at-times rambling and bellicose speech last Friday only served to exacerbate that concern inside the White House, one official said.

Mr. Biden’s references to Armageddon were highly unusual for any American president. Since the Cuban Missile Crisis 60 years ago this month, the occupant of the Oval Office have rarely spoken in such somber tones about the possible use of nuclear weapons.

He is serious about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is very, very poor.

Presidents are often less guarded during political fundraising events, which are usually not on camera even though a press pool is allowed in for some remarks. It is possible that the President may have said something differently in a news conference than he had in his comments on the nuclear question. The White House has walked back comments made on foreign policy, including on how the US might respond to China if it invaded Taiwan.

“I’m trying to figure out what is Putin’s off ramp?” Biden said during the event, “Where does he find a way out? When he loses face but lose significant power in Russia, where do he go to find himself?

The President might have remembered the lessons of the Cuban missile crisis from 1963, when he spoke at the American University in Washington about the risks of weapons that could end the world.

In the nuclear age it would only be a sign of the decline of our policy and of a collective death-wish for the world.

President Putin and Russia have not shown any interest in meaningful diplomacy. And unless and until they do, it’s very hard to pursue it,” Blinken said.

Biden’s suggestion that the use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine cannot lead to a larger conflagration is wrong, and will be heard about by Putin.

The entire strategic logic between maintaining nuclear weapons for self-defense is that they are too terrible to be used, and any nation that did would be writing their own death warrant.

Biden did not think that it was possible to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon, and not end up with Armageddon.

His comments state the most important mission of his presidency, to shepherd the world through the most dangerous nuclear brinkmanship in 60 years.

His comments come as the US considers how to respond to a range of potential scenarios, including fears that Russians could use tactical nuclear weapons, according to three sources briefed on the latest intelligence and previously reported by CNN.

Despite Biden’s warnings, US officials have not seen a change to Russia’s nuclear posture as of now. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s Tuesday statement that there has been no indication of a change in Russia’s posture and therefore no change in the US posture still stands, the official said.

“This nuclear saber rattling is reckless and irresponsible,” Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said earlier Thursday. “As I’ve mentioned before, at this stage, we do not have any information to cause us to change our strategic deterrence posture, and we don’t assess that President Putin has made a decision to use nuclear weapons at this time.”

The official went on to say that Biden’s comments were justified because of the gravity of the matter.

Biden’s blunt assessment caught several senior US officials by surprise due to lack of new intel and the grim language he used.

While most of what Biden says at the fundraisers is familiar, he has made comments previously that went beyond his remarks to larger audiences. It was a fundraiser in Maryland where Biden declared Trump-aligned Republicans “semi-fascist” and where he said the views of the Catholic Church on abortion had changed.

Biden’s remarks serve as a window into a very real, very ongoing discussion inside his administration as the seek to calibrate the response to that environment.

His remarks are usually 10 minutes long, but in the past he has commented on several topics for more than an hour. After Biden’s remarks reporters were ushered out and he took questions from the donors.

Biden’s comments about the prospect of nuclear Armageddon were not scripted and aides back in Washington first learned about his remarks through news reports and dispatches from the press pool in the room.

The president used Armageddon to show that there is no escalation ladder for nuclear weapons or other tactical weapons. There is only one outcome that can be set off by a move in that direction.

The speech strengthened the US view of Russian weakness and isolation but it also raised concerns about Putin’s willingness to escalate beyond the level of a rational actor.

The White House decided not to speak publicly on Thursday night and no one is going to speak publicly again on Friday morning. If Biden wants to address it himself, it will be apparent when he departs for his Maryland event later in the morning, one official said.

US officials have not seen a change in their posture or intelligence that would make the threat level above where it has been.

The First Year of Nuclear Nonproliferation: The Times of Donald J. Trump and the Nuclear Limits on the Nucleon from the Reagan Era to the Cold War

A professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University, Zelizer is a CNN political analyst. He is the author and editor of 24 books, including, “The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: A First Historical Assessment.” Follow him on Twitter @julianzelizer. His views are his own and expressed in this commentary. There’s more opinion on CNN.

The pursuit of arms agreements would be a top priority for more than a decade after Kennedy signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Agreement and four years later, President Richard Nixon struck a deal with the Soviet Union to limit the number of nuclear missiles in their arsenals. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks [SALT] were essential to Nixon’s policy of détente – easing relations with the Soviets.

Although Reagan spent his first term railing against any negotiations with the Soviets, he later bucked conservative opposition to sign the historic Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Agreement (INF) in 1987. Gorbachev’s embrace of peace and reform opened the door for the treaty, which led to the elimination of entire classes of missiles.

Soviet aggression didn’t make things easier. After the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, Carter admitted, “My opinion of the Russians has changed most dramatically in the last week than even the previous two and one – half years before that.” Carter had already signed the SALT II treaty in June 1979 after seven years of negotiations, but he asked the Senate to postpone action on it after the Soviet invasion. The treaty was never endorsed by Congress, but the US voluntarily observed the arms limits for a number of years.

A massive, international nuclear freeze movement that emerged during the 1980s reflected the zeitgeist and created renewed pressure on elected officials to engage in negotiations again.

Although the Cold War ended, nuclear weapons remained a topic of discussion – particularly how to keep them out of the hands of rogue states and terrorist networks. While President George W. Bush signed a nuclear arms treaty with Putin, the US raised concerns that Russia was assisting Iran with a nuclear weapons program. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed by President Barack Obama in 2015, and it was intended to contain Iran’s nuclear program.

But when Donald Trump became president, he pulled out of the nuclear agreement with Iran in 2018 (subsequently, Iran has escalated its nuclear arms program). In 2019, the United States also withdrew from the INF Treaty. One year later, Trump did the same with the Open Skies Treaty, which had enabled participants to conduct surveillance flights to foster transparency and reduce the risk of war.

With Putin threatening to use nuclear weapons, it’s past time to kick start a new era of arm controls. The treaty whose text is on the table offers Gorbachev a chance to escape the threat of catastrophe. It is our duty to take full advantage of that chance and move together toward a nuclear-free world, which holds out for our children and grandchildren and for their children and grandchildren the promise of a fulfilling and happy life without fear and without a senseless waste of resources of weapons of mass destruction.”

As the world now faces the real possibility of those weapons being deployed, let’s remember Gorbachev’s wise words — a sentiment that was shared by Reagan – and make this world safer.

The deal that prevented a disaster that could have killed tens of millions of Americans and billions of Soviet citizens came to light later.

Is Russia really the largest nuclear arsenal in the world? A phenomenological analysis of Russia’s actions in the past and the present

The head of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists said that Russia is thought to have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. The public thinks that Russian nukes are smaller weapons, but they are not. “They have a very wide range of explosive yields, going up to a couple of hundred of kilotons – so much more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb,” he says.

“We have seen nuclear deterrence work, on the part of both Russia and Western countries,” she says. Russia isn’t attacking neighboring NATO countries, while NATO troops are not fighting inside of Ukraine.

FuHRMANN: I think the probability of Russia using nuclear weapons right now is still relatively low. I might put it slightly higher than I would have in late February, when the when the conflict was first picking up, but I still think it’s relatively low.

To be shocking is to make it clear that you are willing to kill a lot of people with a nuclear weapon.

“I think the Russians would see a conventional attack on their nuclear capacity, as effectively a nuclear attack,” she says. Things could escalate further from there.

But Oliker points out that all of this is still highly theoretical. She hopes the two sides can find a solution to the conflict.

“If I wanted to tell a tale of how to get there, I would have to jump a lot,” she says. There are some leaps and jumps in the path of a thermonuclear war.

What strategic nuclear weapons does Russia need to defend itself against the invasion of Ukraine? An interview with Fuhrmann (Russian Nuclear Weapons Threat Matter)

Russia’s military has been beaten back from key parts of the areas after they rejected sham referendums that used to justify annexing four Ukrainian regions.

I asked Fuhrmann if the rhetoric has changed, if Putin is rational and if we have a better idea of what the tactical nuclear weapons Russia could theoretically use. Our conversation, edited for length, is below.

Members of a local electoral commission count votes at a polling station on September 27 after a referendum on joining the Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine to Russia.

Someone who is rational can make riskier decisions. But as long as they’re making those decisions on the basis of some means and calculation, factoring in costs and benefits, then I would still characterize them as a rational actor.

WOLF: There’s been a lot of skepticism that Putin would actually cross the line and use some kind of nuclear weapon. He’d need to frame it as a defensive measure or a response to a strike on the Russian homeland. Is there anything specifically with regard to that idea of a cost/benefit analysis that suggests it would be worth it for him to use nuclear weapons?

What we’re probably talking about here would be the use of a tactical nuclear weapon – something with a lower yield, that will result in fewer casualties, less radioactive contamination compared to a larger strategic weapon.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/18/politics/russia-nuclear-weapons-threat-what-matters/index.html

WOLF: What could Russia do if a nuclear weapon had been used in the early 1980s, and what would it tell us about a wartime?

A rehearsal for a military parade is taking place on May 7, 1941, on the 77th anniversary of the victory over Germany in World War II.

FUHRMANN: More than using a nuclear weapon on the battlefield, what he might be more likely to do would be some kind of nuclear detonation in the middle of nowhere as a signal to tell the United States and the West, hey, back off. If there was going to be nuclear weapon use, that’s the scenario where I think it would be most likely based on the way things have gone so far.

WOLF: You decided between a tactical nuclear weapon and a strategic nuclear weapon. It seems like you crossed a line even if you use a nuclear weapon.

There is huge variation in the types of nuclear weapons that are used, and I think that that is a key factor in determining how damaging they can be.

WOLF: What would be the lasting environmental effect of even a tactical nuclear weapon? How long before people could go back and live in an area where one was used?

If it was detonated at ground level, that means something differently than if it was detonated in the air. It would also depend on things like wind patterns.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/18/politics/russia-nuclear-weapons-threat-what-matters/index.html

The United States as a Strategic Arm of the Cold War: What have we learned from the last Soviet Union? — FuHRMANN’s perspective

But there’s been no comparable bilateral arms control dealing with tactical nuclear weapons. They have different types of nuclear weapons with different capabilities. It depends on command and control procedures, but tactical nuclear weapons are more portable than strategic nuclear weapons. They’re designed for use on the battlefield and so they can be fired by a single soldier.

You could see, for example, weapons moving out of storage, and weapons moving to the frontlines. These are things that would be observable, in theory, by US satellites. And to my knowledge, we haven’t seen any of that happening yet.

FUHRMANN: The strategic weapons were the big weapons that could destroy cities. I think it was necessary to focus attention on those that could potentially be the most destructive.

Most of the weapons were returned home after the end of the Cold War. There are still some US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. Not many. Weapons that are military are not all that useful. Compared to Russia, the United States has at this point, fewer tactical nuclear weapons.

Heufmann: I think probably some people in Washington are already thinking that the United States should be more equipped with a greater number of smaller-yield tactical weapons.

There was a debate in Washington about whether the US should develop weapons that have lower yields. The United States doesn’t have anything comparable if Russia uses one of the lower-yield tactical nuclear weapons. So if it were going to retaliate, in a nuclear sense, it would have to use a bigger nuclear weapon, which could be seen as an asymmetric response.

FuHRMANN: My feeling is that nuclear weapons are useful as invasion insurance and as a deterrent against very major threats to national security. I don’t see them being useful for blackmail.

WOLF: There was a lot of fear that the Russian weapons could be used to launch a dirty bomb after 9/11, and there was a lot of worry about who was going to do that. Is that threat gone, or is we not paying attention to it?

The United States, through its actions, influences that probability to a large degree. To the extent that the United States were to escalate its military involvement in the war, do anything to strike targets in Russia itself, do anything to put troops on the ground in an overt way and actually enter the conflict, all of those things would significantly increase the risk of nuclear escalation.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/18/politics/russia-nuclear-weapons-threat-what-matters/index.html

Do we really need the nuclear bombs of Russia to scare the West? A comment on the video of a far-right Ukrainian organization building a bomb

WOLF: It’s starting to become apparent that more and more Republicans are questioning military aid to Ukraine. What are the best ways to strike that balance?

There is a line that countries have been willing to walk up to, but I think that line is being used quietly by actors in the conflict with other nuclear powers.

The United States was giving a lot of support to the mujahideen in their fight against the Soviets. Not the same as the aid that was provided to Ukraine. The Soviet Union was, for its part, doing things to provide aid in the Korean War.

Similarly, Jeremy Fleming, director of the UK’s GCHQ intelligence agency, said last week, “I would hope that we will see indicators if they started to go down that path.” There would be a chance of detecting Russian preparations.

Russia’s nuclear bombs are stored in military facilities and would need to be transported and loaded into either aircraft or launchers for deployment. Pavel Podvig, who runs the research organization Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces, notes that the global community knows the location of the roughly 12 nuclear weapons storage facilities around Russia where this activity would likely originate. The US has knowledge of many of the sites because of the work the US and Russia did to improve the physical security of the sites in the last few years.

Russian state TV has this kind of apocalyptic language before. There are no allegations of a dirty bomb being prepared by the Ukrainians. Experts say that the language in Russia’s propaganda is the same as it has always been.

Kateryna Stepanenko, an analyst at the US Institute for the Study of War and a frequent watcher of Russian TV, says nuclear propaganda is meant to scare the West and appease the audience.

A popular account with over 100,000 followers uploaded a video in early February that claimed to show a far-right Ukrainian organization building a bomb, with hands clad in black gloves. The account warned that such a bomb would be “used against Russian troops in the event of an invasion.”

The video, however, was quickly debunked—the Ukrainian-language video is rife with spelling mistakes and shows common industrial equipment, according to the Ukrainian fact-check organization StopFake. Nevertheless, the basic claim remained a constant reference for those pro-Kremlin Telegram accounts—appearing in hundreds of posts over the last eight months, being viewed hundreds of thousands of times.

Putin said his “special military operation” in Ukraine is taking longer than expected and that he had succeeded in seizing new territory, but that his country’s nuclear weapons were preventing the conflict from escalating.

Speaking in a televised meeting in Russia with members of his Human Rights Council, Putin described the land gains as “a significant result for Russia,” noting that the Sea of Azov “has become Russia’s internal sea.” In one of his references to a Russian leader, he said that Peter the Great tried to get access to that body of water.

The key Sea of Azov port of Mariupol fell into the hands of Russia in May after a 3-month siege, after being captured by Russia at the start of the invasion. In September,Putin annexed four Ukrainian regions even though his forces didn’t completely control them. In 2014, he had illegally annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.

Putin’s response to the Ukrainian Nuclear Warfare Crisis: “We have not gone mad”, he told RIA Novostiev

Even if it doesn’t use it first under any circumstances, that doesn’t mean it won’t be used in case of a nuclear strike on our territory.

“We have not gone mad.” Putin said they are aware of what nuclear weapons are. He said they are more advanced and state-of-the-art than any other nuclear power has.

The Russian leader didn’t address Russia’s setbacks on the battlefield or its attempts to exert control over the seized regions, but he acknowledged the issues with supplies, treatment of wounded soldiers and limited desertions.

In the Kursk region bordering Ukraine, the governor posted photos of new concrete anti-tank barriers — known as “dragon’s teeth” — in open fields. After a drone strike, there was a fire at an airport in the region. In neighboring Belgorod, workers were expanding anti-tank barriers and officials were organizing “self-defense units.” Belgorod has seen numerous fires and explosions, apparently from cross-border attacks, and its governor reported Wednesday that Russia’s air defenses have shot down incoming rockets.

On Monday, Russia unleashed a fresh wave of drone and missile attacks targeting energy infrastructure across Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated that the strikes caused widespread power failures.

Moscow responded with strikes by artillery, multiple rocket launchers, missiles, tanks and mortars at residential buildings and civilian infrastructure, worsening damage to the power grid. In the eastern part of the country where Ukrenergo is making repairs, the temperatures have dropped to as low as minus 17 degrees Celsius.

At his meeting, Putin discussed the 300,000 Reserve troops he ordered to bolster forces in Ukraine. Only about 150,000 people have been deployed to combat zones so far. Addressing speculation that the Kremlin could be preparing another mobilization, Putin said: “There is no need for the Defense Ministry and the country to do that.”

Putin was speaking at a news conference in Bishkek. He described the preemptive nuclear strike as “applied to the control points, deprive the enemy of these control systems and so on,” implying that it could even prevent a retaliatory strike.

Putin acknowledged on Wednesday that the conflict is going to take a while, as he also warned of the increasing threat of nuclear war.

Biden administration officials have previously said that Moscow has been warned at the highest levels of the consequences for use of nuclear weapon in the war.

“So if we’re talking about this disarming strike, then maybe think about adopting the best practices of our American partners and their ideas for ensuring their security. We are just thinking about it. He said nobody was shy when they talked about it.

It makes us think about the threats we face if a potential adversary thinks that it’s possible to use a preventive strike.