As I mentioned in my previous article, I stated that I would publish this article in two parts. I hope to increase read rates by not making the article too long. If you haven't read the first part of the article, you can read it from this link.
University of Oslo nuclear project member Dr. Ven describes Putin's situation as a paradox. Putin is of the opinion that he can invade Kiev because he knows that the US will not enter the war, while Biden is of the opinion that Russia cannot attack Western military aid due to the risk of World War III. But Dr. According to Ven, he thinks that in the event of a nuclear attack, the paradox will be broken and both sides will fall into the vortex. For this reason, there is an opinion that the nuclear attack will have very serious consequences.
According to the New York Times report, three White House officials believe that US intelligence sees Putin warmly towards the nuclear threat. They call it "The Cornered Putin Problem". When Putin realizes he can't win, instead of retreating, he can launch a nuclear strike. Former US deputy defense secretary J. Lawrence thinks that as one of four possible possibilities in Ukraine, Putin could use tactical nuclear weapons to avoid humiliation by defeat.
Only Putin rules Russia and it is not easy for him to accept losing to a comedian in Ukraine, which he sees as his own territory. He will not withdraw until he has played all the cards in his hand before he has suffered this humiliating end. This increases the likelihood of a nuclear attack.
Pavel Podvig, who is researching the Russian nuclear forces, said that the Russian command and control system is ready to order a nuclear attack. The cards in Putin's hand are getting smaller day by day. According to the New York Times, the USA therefore expects an atomic move from Putin.
Nina Tannenwald of Brown University also said Putin could use nuclear deterrence to find his way in Ukraine. She says that in this case, the West will be prevented from intervening. So, How will it be?
First of all, the conditions are quite compatible with Russia's nuclear doctrine. According to the doctrine, the nuclear attack is based on the principle of "escalation to reduce". In other words, nuclear attack in order to force the enemy to retreat and subdue. Thus, the peace table will be established. Before such an attack, Russia needs to escalate tensions and declare the threat of nuclear attack several times. The Kremlin declared its first threat yesterday. A compelling reason must then be presented. The attack must be based on an existential threat...
The Kremlin announced last night that a nuclear attack would be made as an existential threat. However, it is still unclear what the threat will be. In the coming days, Russia may organize a sabotage to use this threat as an excuse. Such a move will surely come.
Russia carried out an exercise in line with this doctrine in 1999. In the exercise, an attack took place on Kaliningrad, Russia's landmass in Europe, and Russia responded with nuclear weapons. The Suwalki gap/corridor must be watched carefully these days.
After the nuclear attack statements and the existential threat, "diplomatic demands" will probably follow. But these will be things that the other party will never accept. And finally, the nuclear attack...
In addition to nuclear attacks, Russia also has a card for the use of chemical weapons. But so far it has never been brought up. The USA determined this type of attack as a red line. The chemical attack is a genre more capable of causing civilian death than being spectacular. Since Russia has no initiative in this direction, Putin is probably not aiming for a large-scale massacre of civilians. He is aware that in this case, the whole world will react and he will probably be abandoned by China. Therefore, the possibility of a nuclear attack outweighs it.
If Putin does not consider the use of chemical weapons because he is afraid of a large-scale massacre of civilians, then he cannot be voicing the nuclear attack for such a justification. All these possibilities indicate that the nuclear attack will be tactical, low-impact and immortal.
current warhead inventories, FAS
The nuclear attack will most likely be on a deserted area. An exercise in this direction was held in 2018 and a remote area of the North Sea was preferred. In summary, nuclear strikes will not target troops, low-impact bombs will be used, and it will be a kind of demonstration shoot.
Thus, Putin will have escalated the tension to the maximum level by being the first actor to use nuclear weapons in a conflict since World War II. It will not hit military units, but will signal that it can hit when necessary. And he will want to sit at the table at the first opportunity.
It is difficult to predict the consequences if Russia uses nuclear weapons. But the USA can use this crisis to turn it into an opportunity. They will want to form an anti-Russian coalition from such an attack that will upset the whole world.
So what will the US response be?
Former Director of National Intelligence General James Clapper said he wouldn't know how to advise Biden in such a situation, adding: "You can't turn the other cheek. At some point we'll have to do something." According to Clapper, the US's nuclear war plans are like a deep-seated secret, and it is impossible to know what the US's response will be. But according to Clapper, the first thing that comes to mind is that the USA responded with a similar retaliation: IN SIBERIA!
siberian map, this area of russia is less populated than European part and mostly covered by thundra/ice desert, britanicca
Under this scenario, the United States could launch a reduced-violence tactical nuclear weapon of the type used by Russia into the Siberian deserts and send the message to Putin that "the problem is serious and could escalate". Friends, these are spoken in the West. Terrible.
Russia used nuclear weapons as a last resort, and the United States responded. Then what?
What happens next is unknown. Russia has around 2,000 nuclear weapons, and the US has slightly less. About a hundred of them are in Europe. Princeton University found that 90 million people could die in a simulation that would begin with a tactical nuclear strike and escalate into nuclear war. It is worth mentioning: The effect of the weighted part of the titles due to the nuclear agreements is very low compared to the ones thrown in Hiroshima. It is difficult to predict where the process will evolve. Putin is not the type to accept defeat and return, and the possibility of Russia launching a low-effective tactical nuclear weapon into an empty field is increasing day by day.
As I finish my article, I would like to suggest a documentary that tells you what a possible nuclear war will look like.