[Faust]

WhiskeyOutpost you’d find this interesting, not trying to change you into ‘team tactical nuke’ (I know you fear the civilian collateral damage or the cascading escalation scenario), but it still shows why it is much, much less dangerous long term compared to an attack on a nuclear plant (if the yield is low enough to be fired from essentially a fighter jet, not talking about the B1/Tu-160 launched city ending weapons)

[WonderMomma]

"much, much less dangerous" is not an excuse to nuke people. "Playing god" is something our species cannot resist and this would be one of the greatest examples of doing so. It's wrong.

No one should have that kind of power and anyone who thinks bombing anyone with nuclear weapons of any kind, for any reason needs to be put on a list. I don't care how "less dangerous" tactical nukes are.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by WonderMomma ↗

"much, much less dangerous" is not an excuse to nuke people. "Playing god" is something our species cannot resist and this would be one of the greatest examples of doing so. It's wrong.

No one should have that kind of power and anyone who thinks bombing anyone with nuclear weapons of any kind, for any reason needs to be put on a list. I don't care how "less dangerous" tactical nukes are.

If they just use traditional ordnance then it is fine?

[WonderMomma]

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

If they just use traditional ordnance then it is fine?

Did I say that? No.

Were we talking about traditional ordinances? No.

See my reply to you here. Same shit, different day.

[Faust]

They can throw a 1000 bombs and nobody give a shit, but 1 tactical nuke with less destructive power not to mention only negligible radioactive effects afterwards and suddenly everybody starts peeing their pants?

People on this support the right for Ukraine to use depleted uranium rounds, yet they think they should protest tactical nukes. That merely shows such people don’t understand a lot about either.

[kellyhound]

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

They can throw a 1000 bombs and nobody give a shit, but 1 tactical nuke with less destructive power not to mention only negligible radioactive effects afterwards and suddenly everybody starts peeing their pants?

No one should imagine, however, that it makes sense to use a tactical nuclear weapon. A thermonuclear explosion of any size possesses overwhelming destructive power.

Even a “small-yield” nuclear weapon (0.3 kilotons) would produce damage far beyond that of a conventional explosive. (For a graphic depiction, the interactive site NUKEMAP, created by nuclear historian Alexander Wellerstein, allows you to simulate the effects of a nuclear explosion of any size anywhere on the planet.)

It would also cause all the horrors of Hiroshima, albeit on a smaller scale. A tactical nuclear weapon would produce a fireball, shock waves, and deadly radiation that would cause long-term health damage in survivors.

Radioactive fallout would contaminate air, soil, water and the food supply (Ukrainians are already familiar with this kind of outcome because of the disastrous meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in 1986).

No one knows if using a tactical nuclear weapon would trigger full-scale nuclear war. Nevertheless, the risk of escalation is very real. Those on the receiving end of a nuclear strike are not likely to ask whether it was tactical or strategic.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on February 6, 2018, then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated “I do not think there is any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon.

Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game changer.” Russian leaders have made clear that they would view any nuclear attack as the start of an all-out nuclear war.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-catastrophic/

People on this support the right for Ukraine to use depleted uranium rounds, yet they think they should protest tactical nukes. That merely shows such people don’t understand a lot about either.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-depl...-armor-1790756

Russia also maintains its own stocks of DU munitions. A U.S. Defense Department spokesperson told that the U.S. along with other nations, "have long possessed depleted uranium rounds as well, including Russia."

"Of course, the Russians use it [DU] extensively as well," Colonel (Ret'd) Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, who previously commanded U.K. and NATO chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense (CBRN) forces, told.

What comes around goes around.

[Roosta]

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

They can throw a 1000 bombs and nobody give a shit, but 1 tactical nuke with less destructive power not to mention only negligible radioactive effects afterwards and suddenly everybody starts peeing their pants?

People on this support the right for Ukraine to use depleted uranium rounds, yet they think they should protest tactical nukes. That merely shows such people don’t understand a lot about either.

Just like you completely understand what nukes do & the aftermath. LOL.

My suggestion is to take those nukes n stick them up your pro ruskie ass as to be calling out for their use like you are doing is madness.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by kellyhound ↗

No one should imagine, however, that it makes sense to use a tactical nuclear weapon. A thermonuclear explosion of any size possesses overwhelming destructive power.

Even a “small-yield” nuclear weapon (0.3 kilotons) would produce damage far beyond that of a conventional explosive. (For a graphic depiction, the interactive site NUKEMAP, created by nuclear historian Alexander Wellerstein, allows you to simulate the effects of a nuclear explosion of any size anywhere on the planet.)

It would also cause all the horrors of Hiroshima, albeit on a smaller scale. A tactical nuclear weapon would produce a fireball, shock waves, and deadly radiation that would cause long-term health damage in survivors.

Radioactive fallout would contaminate air, soil, water and the food supply (Ukrainians are already familiar with this kind of outcome because of the disastrous meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in 1986).

No one knows if using a tactical nuclear weapon would trigger full-scale nuclear war. Nevertheless, the risk of escalation is very real. Those on the receiving end of a nuclear strike are not likely to ask whether it was tactical or strategic.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on February 6, 2018, then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated “I do not think there is any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon.

Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game changer.” Russian leaders have made clear that they would view any nuclear attack as the start of an all-out nuclear war.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-catastrophic/



https://www.newsweek.com/russia-depl...-armor-1790756

What comes around goes around.

With an airburst explosion there is no real fallout, also Russia could just use cluster ammunition on the area for a few hours after the strike to make sure that any surviving Ukrainian military(or mercenaries, foreign troops or volunteers) do not need to suffer like the people did in Hiroshima. Also the smallest yield would be 50 times less compared to Hiroshima so that should also be factored in.

The destruction of the nuclear plant will be much worse with actual lasting effects.

So, as retaliatory strikes for any further attempt to strike or damage the plant, the use would be justified IMO

As for Russia using depleted Uranium I’ll look into that. I have read about it earlier when they began supplying it to Ukraine but I was unable to find credible sources with actual proof of its usage. To use my earlier ‘test’, had Russia used the ammunition then there would be pictures and videos accompanying front page NYT articles with CNN coverage with actual scientists showing and explaining the proof

[Faust]

With the current state of the counteroffensive…. attempt, it is unlikely that tactical nukes are needed.

Just remember that a single Himars strike against spent fuel storage has a higher and actual lasting ecological and health impact on the area compared to low yield tactical nuclear weapons.

Did anybody notice that Ukraine STFU about supposed mined rooftops? This means that the US didn’t give approval for that scenario.

Escalation is the only option for Ukraine at this point and the attack against the nuclear plant is the only real shot they have.

Not ethically but tactically. I hope the US realises they cannot afford it

[kellyhound]

Russia continues to turn Europe's largest nuclear power plant into a training ground for military exercises, ignoring any safety rules.