The United States’ and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) continued support for Ukraine’s valiant fight to repel a Russian invasion may, ultimately, depending on the state of the conflict, lead Russia to employ one or a small number of low-yield tactical nuclear weapons. A conflict between the United States and China, over Taiwan, could also lead to a similar use of nuclear weapons. There is ample evidence to suggest a growing relevance of what are interchangeably called non-strategic, tactical, or low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons.
Russia, which fields an arsenal of at least 2,000 such nuclear weapons, began modernizing its arsenal of intra-theater nuclear weapons more than a decade ago. These weapons can rapidly strike European NATO member-states—primarily with lower yield warheads.
Russia’s “escalate to deescalate” strategy relies on the use of low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons could either be used to defeat Ukraine and force NATO capitulation in that conflict or win a possible war against a conventional NATO force advancing East. In short, Russia could seek a fait accompli using one or a small number of low-yield nuclear weapons in a limited capacity on the battlefield, for which NATO has no equal response.
What makes such an approach highly attractive to Russia is that NATO is unlikely to respond to a nuclear use in Ukraine or an attack on NATO’s eastern flank with nuclear weapons, because NATO’s dual-cable aircraft—fighter jets armed with B-61 nuclear gravity bombs—are not a combat-ready force that can effectively counter Russian nuclear use on a battlefield. Let me reiterate, Russia likely maintains 3,000–6,000 intra-theater nuclear weapons that vary from low to high yield and short to intermediate range. Low estimates suggest they have 2,000 such weapons.
A 2017 Defense Intelligence Agency report went deeper into Russia’s tactical nuclear warfare commitment revealing delivery systems that include air-to-surface missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, gravity bombs, depth charges for medium-range bombers, tactical bombers, and naval aviation, as well as anti-ship, anti-submarine, and anti-aircraft missiles and torpedoes for surface ships and submarines. While it is only speculation, it is reasonable to suggest that Russian President Vladimir Putin was building a nuclear capability for a circumstance like he finds himself in now.
As two and a half years of war in Ukraine illustrate, Russia does not maintain a conventional force sufficient to defeat an American-led NATO force. This leaves Putin more reliant on his nuclear forces.
Given Russia’s economic and strategic limitations, it should come as no surprise that Russia has pursued low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons as an asymmetric advantage against the United States. In many respects, Russia is pursuing a course of action not dissimilar from the New Look Policy of the Eisenhower administration.
For the Biden administration and, soon, either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, the real threat of nuclear weapons use in Ukraine or against NATO cannot be ignored. Contrary to the mantra that all nuclear weapons are strategic and there is no such thing as a winnable nuclear war, the Russians and Chinese see things differently.
Low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons do not create a nuclear wasteland. In fact, an air burst at the right height of burst produces no fall-out at all—only heat, a blast wave, and prompt radiation that dissipate in hundreds or a few thousand yards.
With numerous low-yield nuclear options available to Russia, there is a very real need for the United States military to retrain for operating in a post–nuclear detonation environment. In a recent public discussion, the heads of the Central Intelligence Agency and the United Kingdom’s MI6 revealed that Putin came very close to using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine during the fall of 2022. Such a scenario can easily arise again.
American mirror imaging of Russian perspectives on nuclear use, to suggest they think like Americans and would therefore never violate the “nuclear taboo”, is a recipe for getting caught unprepared. While Russians do see nuclear weapons as different than conventional weapons, they do understand weapons effects and are not given to the hyperbole that is widespread in the United States.
The fact that American integrated deterrence was a disastrous failure in its attempt to forestall a Russian invasion of Ukraine and is failing to restore deterrence with Russia vis-à-vis Ukraine means that the Russians now understand that American sanctions and other threats are largely harmless. Since the implementation of sanctions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Putin found alternative outlets for Russian exports (petroleum) and found alternate sources of imports—including military supplies.
Rather than breaking Russia, American action drove China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia together. This leaves Putin less reluctant to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine than he perhaps was before.
Of course, neither China nor Russia is seeking to start a nuclear conflict that sees the exchange of strategic nuclear weapons. That would be devastating for everyone. But the use of a small number of low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons is a different story.
Even a reluctant Biden administration, now that it is coming to an end, tossed the disarmament community’s ostrich strategy into the dustheap of history. It is now a matter of whether the United States has the will to embark on the expansive modernization effort required to fill the gap in battlefield nuclear weapons.
Adam Lowther, PhD is the Vice President for Research at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. The views expressed are his own.
About the Author
Adam Lowther
Dr. Adam Lowther is Vice President of Research at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Read the full bio here.
Never telegraph your intent. The United States – NATO told Russia at the start of the war in Ukraine that the result of tactical nukes would result in a massive conventional response. The Kremlin has continued to revise its nuclear doctrine to use either tactical nukes or to launch a strategic nuclear strike targeting the UK, Germany, and France.
The threats have come so often that they have been normalized. In war, there is nothing so dangerous as complacency.
Is Putin willing to use nuclear weapons? That depends on how one interprets his psychological profile. Putin grew up in Leningrad in poverty. He developed a “hobby” of playing with and observing rats’ reactions in certain situations. Putin served as a KGB agent in East Berlin. He was shocked by what he saw as the fall of the Soviet Empire.
Further, Putin is a paranoid personality. He sees rivals and dangers everywhere, even in his inner circle. He is becoming further isolated. He only receives optimistic intelligence briefings. Putin is so afraid that he recently destroyed his Sochi villa. These are traits commonly found in autocrats.
Regarding his intent, would the collapse of the Russian Army in Ukraine trigger an irrational response regarding the use of nuclear or other WMD? Given the probability that Putin would be deposed and, presuming he survived that, he would be turned over as a war criminal. My perspective is that, given his personality, he would turn to the use of WMD.
There are several caveats. To achieve room for maneuver, it would be necessary to detonate two tactical nuclear weapons. The first problem for Russia is that the West has identified the storage sites for both low-yield weapons as strategic nuclear weapons. The movement of low-yield armaments would be detected by satellite. Satellites would also detect preparations for the use of strategic weapons. The next Russian problem is exploiting a breach in a nuclear environment, which requires special combat vehicles and trained troops. Given battlefield losses in workforce and equipment, the Russians cannot engage in maneuver operations in an irradiated operational zone.
The next consideration is, would the military actually obey such an order? The rank and file suffer from very low morale. Junior and field grade officers also have similar issues. Are the general and flag officers willing to become casualties, or will a mutiny exist?
Last caveat: Are Putin and the Kremlin willing to suffer the geopolitical fallout? Some intelligence sources have analyzed that the General Secretary of the CCP, Xi, has told the Kremlin not to go nuclear.
William Downey, USAF, retired.
I read this article carefully, and failed to find any evidence of a military mission for Russia’s purported use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield, particularly when there are significant prospects that a wide-ranging conventional military, diplomatic, and economic response would undermine any benefits that Russia might hope to achieve by “scaring” Ukraine and the West with nuclear use. And, if you’ve followed the extensive debate over this among Russian academics and advisors, it’s easy to see that “scaring the West” into abandoning Ukraine would be the goal, as there is no military mission for nuclear weapons on the ground in Ukraine.
Second point: why would the United States need a parallel nuclear capability to respond to Russia’s nuclear use? What military mission/target set would require the use of nuclear weapons? Or is it just tit-for-tat punishment that you seek?
Finally, my real complaint with this piece appears in the first paragraph, where you state that “There is ample evidence to suggest a growing relevance of what are interchangeably called non-strategic, tactical, or low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons.” Th link in that sentence takes you to a paper I wrote. And I can assure you, beyond a doubt, there is nothing in that paper, or in my thinking that indicates that those three phrases are interchangeable. I offer several definitions for the term “non-strategic,” and I firmly agree with General Mattis, who, when testified before Congress, stated that any use of nuclear weapons would be strategic. This is true even if there were a battlefield military mission. Treating nuclear weapons a just a “bigger boom” is dangerous and ridiculous. Even if there were little or no fall-out, the blast, fire, and radiation would exceed any military requirements. And, even though the radiation would dissipate from the atmosphere, it’s effects would not dissipate from the bodies of those who, whether military or civilian, were exposed in the initial blast.
In today’s parlance, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was “low yield.” I’d suggest a review of the results of that attack before you claim that the use of a few of these weapons would be no big deal.
Amy, I am certainly not surprised that you find my arguments difficult to support your pro-arms control and disarmament views are well known. Perhaps you did not see the public statements of the CIA Director and MI6 Head, who stated very clearly that Russia was very close to using a nuclear weapon in November 2022. Russia has capabilities that range from sub-one kiloton to over a megaton. They also have the same ability to calculate weapons effects as we do. I can’t agree with your mirror imaging of American values on the Russians. I certainly have followed the debate. To suggest nuclear weapons have no military purpose to fail to understand actual warfighting, which is understandable after a life spent in Washington. I wrote a longer piece in Aether a year or so ago called Nuclear Apples and Conventional Oranges, or something like that, where we go into the specific details of nuclear utility on the battlefield. It clearly shows how and when you would use nuclear rather than conventional weapons. Since you are ignoring the near use in 2022, I’m pretty sure I can’t bring you up to speed in a reply to a comment.
As for why I used an in-text link to your paper, it was simply to show how one author, and you are one of many who write on the topic, defines terms. There was nothing particularly special about your writing. It was just an example.
You mischaracterize what I said, as per usual. I said the Russians see nuclear weapons as warfighting weapons, but they do not see them as interchangeable with conventional weapons. Reread the piece…. the 800-word piece. That is absolutely correct.
Again, your piece offers one definition of these weapons. Thats all it was used for, to show what one person thinks.
Finally, I’m not sure you really understand how blast, thermal, and ionizing radiation propagate, and more importantly dissipate. I’d recommend reading Glasstone and Dolan. Over 80% of casualties in Hiroshima were caused by the fire that started after the detonation. The direct effects were quite limited, which is why the concrete structure directly below the fireball (which never got close to the ground) was left standing. Please don’t propagate inaccurate information about weapons effects. It does not help people understand what these weapons actually do.
We need to tread carefully. Nobody but Putin know how far he can and will go. He thought he would win in 3 days. He started this conflict because he was worried about the West control of Ukraine. There is no smoke without a fire. No matter how small. The point is Putin is capable of using nukes. Small or big. He has already set a line which we are close to. Don’t underestimated Putin with the life’s of the world.
I think if Russia were to use tactical nukes on Ukraine that NATO would likely respond with conventional weapons and take out many of Putin’s troops involved with the use of tactical nukes. That’s probably why he deployed many of them to Belarus thinking he can claim he wasn’t involved.
Adam is right on this. The U.S. has pushed Putin into a corner.
We’ve embarrassed him, even almost bragging about supplying the weapons that are defeating him.
We’re at a point now where his people are looking to him to defend them.
You know something, Russians aren’t much different than us in that they think their way is the right way.
Why can we not keep out of other countries problems. We have problems of our own.
Our politicians spend most of their time, defending themselves or their family members from the crimes they commit.
The rest they spend fighting each other.
They make big bills that leave us having to sit for an hour trying to buy a light bulb because they decided we can’t just go down and buy a 60, 80 or 100 watt bulb anymore.
That’s what these clowns do. How about our grocery prices?
Oh yeah, it’s about time for that big holiday break from doing nothing. You’ve already put on your once a year budget show.
Give us a break and do your job at home.
Like Adam said, you’re about to get a lesson in nuclear weapons.
Well done Dr. Adam. God speed Mr. Putin.
Putin said that Russia has a new nuclear weapons system. You should also ask yourself about North Korea threatening the world with nuclear war. You should ask yourself why Donald Trump and North Korea had a little game of threatening each other with nuclear weapons when he was in the presidency.
We are now standing on the edge of Armageddon. If you don’t know Armageddon is the place where the apocalypse happens. The forces of war are gathering in Israel and Palestine to fulfill God’s prophecy. War and Rumors of War and the Apocalypseis is what God promised humans. Will we be able to stop this process or is this the beginning of the end of Times?
Yes, we have been here many times on the edge of the Apocalypse. We always seem to pull ourselves out just before it happens. It’s like we play the game of Russian roulette. One bullet in one chamber and spin the barrel, how many times can you spin the barrel before you blow your brains out? This is where we are now. Instead of one spin and one trigger pull, we’re spinning the barrel once and pulling the trigger twice. How long can we last?
SPIRITUAL MORALITY IS THE ONLY ANSWER THAT WE ALL NEED.JOHN WHITTINGTON, USMC RETIRED
This guy talks like Russia would break the nuclear taboo, sorry, that happened long ago in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with US weapons. We are still the only country to have used them to slaughter 200k+ civilians. The moral high ground doesn’t exist.
Damned if we do damned if don’t.
that’s some impressive projection.
the tactical nukes, on both sides, have already been used, as you’re well aware. tver. kiev. rostov. beruit. …
nice frameworking you got going on here tho. hope it works out for your career.
I think I heard of a study which indicated that even a small exchange of tactical nuclear weapons fire between nations could trigger a nuclear winter.
Biden weakness
Putin is scared of consequences of nuclear start. The Indian Prime Minister had advised him to wind up the conflict within 2 to 3 weeks even if it meant the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Putin chose to drag on the conflict and sacifice the lives of around half a million of innocent Russian soldiers and civilions and overlook the destruction of previous assets and millitary hardware. I am of the opinion that Putin is feeling guilty of ruining his country and its people and on a day of deep depression may, himself, end his life. If it happens, the USA would have achieved its goal without being a party to direct military conflict.
Your take on the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia is wildly misleading. Russia understands that any use of nuclear weapons be it limited or not will most certainly lead to an exchange of strategic nuclear weapons by The United States. Our nuclear weapons doctrine says as much. There will never be a time where the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons will not lead to a strategic exchange between Russia & The USA.
I can guarantee it! Militarily you would have to strike first, for no other reason than your enemy has just shown you that they are willing to use nukes & strike first.
Your assumption that tactical nuclear weapons don’t cause wastelands is absolutely wrong, P1/P1A & P2’s all had yields of 150 kilotons & more!
They could lay waste to entire cities!
Think again