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.

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.

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.

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.