Professor, the war in Ukraine has among its many side effects also that of clearing customs for a possible use of "tactical" nuclear weapons by the Russian side.

From his point of view, do you think this enormous madness is possible?


In war anything can happen, as the Second World War with Hiroshima and Nagasaki teaches us.

Russia is currently in obvious difficulty and partial mobilization is one of the many signs of this.

Considering the type of monochromatic regime, everything is to be expected from a Putin who fails to conclude his "special military operation" in Ukraine and sees his power waver within Russia.

Recently President Biden also noted the danger of this threat.



Let's give some numbers: how many tactical nuclear weapons are there in the world and how many does Russia have?


In the world there are about 13,000 nuclear weapons between tactical and strategic, mostly in the US (5,428) and Russian (5,977) arsenals, while the remainder are present in those of China (350), Great Britain (225), France (290 ), India (160), Pakistan (165), Israel (90) and North Korea (20).

Russia has 1,912 tactical or theater warheads, not deployed and present in depots.

On the US side, there are about 200, of which half are in overseas deposits, while another 100 are in European bases (Italy, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Turkey).

The numerical difference of the tactical warheads is due to the choices connected to the different geopolitical position of the two superpowers, one - Russia - located on European territory, the other - the United States - located overseas, albeit present in Europe in numerous bases.



What does it mean that: "Russia makes it possible to use nuclear power according to its doctrine".

What is this doctrine?


According to Russian military doctrine, the nuclear weapon should be used to defend the country's security in extreme cases, but according to some it would be aimed at a possible use of its arsenal with the aim of "escalate to de-escalate", that is, threaten its use to block the US and NATO to obtain favorable conditions for the Kremlin in the context of a conflict (in this case in Ukraine).

Personally I am not convinced and gambling with nuclear weapons seems very risky to me.

Since the Cold War era there has been the so-called no first-use clause, that is the commitment not to use the nuclear weapon first, but it is only a commitment that can be revoked at any time.

The latest US Nuclear Posture Review 2022, for example, contrary to the past, has been classified and is not public.

In short,



The NATO secretary general said the alliance's response will be devastating for Russia (using conventional, so they say, weapons).

What does it mean?


Given NATO's military superiority in the conventional sphere and the presence of the Alliance over a vast territory around Russia, Stoltenberg responded to Putin's threats with as many threats of destruction, while avoiding talking about nuclear war, which at that point would be global. and self-destructive for all contenders.

However, in the ongoing conflict, threats and harsh responses are part, so to speak, of the dramatic "party game".

It would be important that in parallel there were talks to look for a way out of a situation that seems to be increasingly twisting on itself.

What are the differences between "tactical" and "strategic" nuclear weapons?

What makes the difference?


The tactical or theater nuclear weapons are of limited power (max 50 kt), mounted on vectors with a limited range (a few km) and with a radioactive fallout also reduced.

As is understandable, however, these tactical devices could still be carried by missiles or by aircraft with a wide range of action, even arriving at more distant targets.

They should theoretically serve as support in conventional warfare to strike restricted areas on the battlefield and cause limited damage and effects.

The strategic ones are more powerful, capable of striking from one continent to another and with a decidedly superior and therefore devastating power.



How much does the explosive capacity weigh in the difference between "tactics" and strategic "?


As already mentioned, the difference also consists in the explosive power. However it should be remembered that the bombs dropped on the two Japanese cities (between 15 and 20 kt) could fall into the category tactical or theatrical weapons. However, over the years weapons of much lower power (less than 1 kt) have been made in order to be able to use them more easily. Just think of the American B-61s also present in Italy in the Ghedi (BS) bases and Aviano (PN)



What are the most dangerous vectors in these weapons?


Since such devices are available to land, air and naval forces, in my opinion, their possible location on submarines (more difficult to detect) represents the greatest threat as they could approach the target undetected.

It is no coincidence that Britain, for example, has its nuclear arsenal positioned all on submarines.

However, even the new hypersonic missiles, very difficult to intercept due to their low flight and their speed, represent another threat to be carefully considered.

There are also anti-missile systems, but if, for example, an attack of hundreds of missiles were 90% thwarted (a success, statistically speaking), 10% would remain sufficient for widespread destruction.



What is the doomsday scenario for Europe and the planet (people, climate)?


According to an estimate by the University of Princeton, a global nuclear war in a few hours would lead to 90 million deaths, imagining an attack on a few dozen cities following the escalation starting from a conventional war.

We will shortly publish in our magazine “IRIAD Review” a summary of this simulation created with a special program, which we then also wanted to use to verify its consequences on some Italian cities.

The picture is certainly apocalyptic, given that the results are limited to providing us with the figures of the dead and injured, but the posthumous effects on man and the environment, as well as the economic and structural damage, should also be counted.

The effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima are testament to what the consequences could be.

The radioactive fallout would enter the atmosphere with repercussions in territories also very far from the theater of the hypothetical conflict.

In this regard, it should be remembered the document of the International Red Cross and the International Red Crescent of some years ago which clearly stated that a nuclear war cannot be won by anyone since the humanitarian damage would be unbearable.