Russia has developed tactical nukes that can be detonated without creating radioactive fallout. NATO claims that the risk of WW3 is not high enough to stop supporting Kyiv, since they argue that Russia will not dare to use atomic weapons because that will lead to international isolation of Russia. But will China, India and other BRICS+ countries actually stop buying products from Russia if the Kremlin detonates a fallout-free tactical nuke in Ukraine and then denies it was nuclear? How can NATO prove to non-Western countries that it was a nuclear detonation if the explosion was relatively small and there is no radioactive fallout?
Even large conventional bombs can create a "mushroom" cloud. These large conventional bombs also create a bright flash that looks like it could have been a nuclear bomb exploding in the distance. Here is an interview with a British volunteer in Ukraine who thought that he had been nuked by the Russians:
Lindybeige (26:35):
What it is like to be shelled by the Russians
I have also read, without remembering the source, that a Western journalist or news commentator said relatively early in the war that he had seen an explosion in Ukraine which he thought was a nuclear detonation, because the night suddenly turned to day, in a blink.
Here is a video about Americans standing beneath an air burst nuclear detonation; a video the US created in order to prove that nuclear fallout is negligible, pretty "harmless":
Kyle Hill:
The Time We Nuked Five Men to Prove a Point
US satellites will take pictures of a nuke exploding in Ukraine, but the Russians might detonate it at night when it's thick fog and heavy clouds. How can NATO prove to outsiders, in the non-Western world, that the explosion was nuclear if the Kremlin right afterward shows videos of Russians fighting in the area where the detonation occurred? Common people have been taught that atomic weapons create very lethal radioactive fallout after an enormous explosion, so it will be difficult to convince them that a nuke detonated in Ukraine if the explosion is "small" and not radioactive. Some will then claim that it's not even a real atomic weapon. This can gradually normalize the use of nukes. It will be more difficult for NATO to justify a military intervention in Ukraine after fallout-free tactical nukes have gradually become a normal part of war. If NATO quickly sends conventional forces into Ukraine after the first nuke explodes, it will be easier for Russia to claim that NATO is the aggressor, the escalator, since other (non-Western) countries have no real evidence that Russia's first deployment of a nuke was in fact an atomic weapon.
Uneducated critics will perhaps argue that I should not publish this article here, because it can give the Russians ideas about how to deploy nukes, but it's naive and dangerously foolish to assume that the Russian military hasn't already war-gamed all kinds of possible scenarios involving fallout-free tactical nukes. They are smart enough to create atomic weapons, hypersonic missiles and send people into space, and they have a history of denying facts, in addition to being very creative when waging hybrid wars, so it's 100% certain that they already know all the advantages of using the fallout-free nukes they have designed. Here is what's really dangerous: NATO making reckless decisions in Ukraine because the West underestimates Russian "orcs".
Russia however may not detonate a nuke in Ukraine, since they know that there is a real risk that NATO will send its superior conventional forces into Ukraine and destroy the Russian military there if Kremlin detonates a tactical fallout-free nuke. NATO will perhaps not be able to convince non-Western states that the first explosion was nuclear, but NATO intelligence knows the truth, and will act accordingly. I think the US is bluffing when claiming that it will destroy the Russian army if Putin escalates to a nuclear level, but the guys in Kremlin are foolish if they base their own strategy on the hope that NATO will deescalate if Russia detonates a nuke in Ukraine. The siloviki should only use tactical nukes if they are willing to sacrifice all major Russian cities in WW3. That's the cost of destroying the woke fourth industrial revolution in the West and save conservative Russia in the long run, because cities can be rebuilt, like they did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the Russians don't nuke Big Tech on the US coasts, then swarms of Western superior AI drones in 2035 or 2045 will simply destroy Russia. We can therefore assume that the Russians are highly motivated to escalate all the way. NATO prepared for that?
No comments:
Post a Comment