Nov 8, 2022Liked by Peter Nayland Kust

"On 30 September 2022, Russia, amid an ongoing invasion of Ukraine, unilaterally declared its annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts – Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. The four annexed regions make up about 15% (90,000 sq km) of Ukraine's territory, and none of them were fully under Russian control at the time. The annexation is the largest in Europe since World War II."


Didn't both Putin and Russian spokesmen say Russia would use tactical nukes to defend their territory? The fact that Kherson has been part of Russia for less than 60 days is irrelevant.

These aren't just crazy people, these are crazy people on drugs!

I actually wrote a sub stack article on this way back.

"Crazy People" on DRUGS

Newsletter #1, March 25.

"Oh, you didn’t know Viagra can be given IV?" (Only for Big Dogs who get off the porch)

Expand full comment

While Putin has rattled the nuclear saber a few times in this war, the practical reality is that, regardless of how crazy he might be, there is no scenario involving a nuclear strike that ends well for Putin.

He can't target the Kherson front without destroying his own best formations. If he pulls all his troops out of Kherson and then nukes the city, the UN would almost certainly classify that as a war crime (would have to classify it as a war crime, given that the UN has already accused Russia of war crimes for lesser conduct). He would also risk contaminating Crimea's water supply, much of which comes from the dam just above Kherson on the Dnipro River.

If he targets Kyiv, or any other city away from the front lines, that would be a war crime. In a single stroke he would justify all of the efforts to turn Russia into a pariah state. Someone in the Kremlin would be highly incented at that point to "retire" Putin.

That assumes, of course, that the Russian Army general staff carries out the order. They could stage a coup d'etat instead. Even if the Russian Army general staff is willing to carry out the order, troops farther down the line might mutiny. The Russian Army general staff would have to choose sides, and they might not choose Putin--meaning again a coup d'etat.

Not to mention the reality of a nuclear strike is Putin will not launch it when he's winning the war, but when he believes he's losing the war.

Expand full comment

"Escalate to de-escalate."

I agree, a crazy strategy.

But people don't realize the revelation in nuclear war fighting strategy. This isn't 1954 and we are not talking about the Tsar Bomb here, all 54 or whatever megatons of it.

Tactical weapons can be as small as the ones the US is suspected of using in Fallujah.

Or the WTC buildings. Neutron warheads in particular, have been developed to very high tech. These weapons drastically change the battlefield once you commit to using them.

Not that much is known about them because nobody wants to admit they even exist.

Expand full comment

There is a very simple reason tactical nukes have never been used.

Militarily, they are not all that useful. Because of the lasting effects of radioactive fallout, conventional artillery and aerial bombardment are far more effective at achieving tactical objectives. With conventional munitions, hardened fortifications and infrastructures can be neutralized or destroyed without denying access to the immediate vicinity for one's own forces.

Ironically, this has always been the case, and always why nuclear weapons are a particular form of madness. In 1945, Curtis LeMay's B29 squadrons were literally destroying Japanese cities at a rate of one per day. The reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected for atomic bombardment is they were among the few cities still standing (this is yet another proof that Truman's justification for using atomic weapons was a pile of horse hockey).

Side note: as I recall, the US is believed by some to be guilty of using incendiary munitions with white phosphorus at Fallujah. Dr Busby's research into birth defects in Fallujah posited a neutron weapon as a possible source, but was far from establishing that such a weapon had been used, and that it remains possible exposure to nuclear waste also accounts for his findings--people forget the Hussein regime still possessed a considerable quantity of yellowcake in 2003, suggesting that the full extent of Iraq's prior nuclear weapons program may not have been fully realized.

Expand full comment

PNK, also, they for some reason have classified the quantity of "depleted uranium" used at the Fallujah site, via tank rounds as well as A-10 "Warthog" 30mm Gatling gun ammo and possible other sources, some still classified.

The utility of these rounds is well known for defeating armor plate and not just on vehicles like armored fighting vehicles, tanks, but also bunkers or up-armored vehicles and/or firing positions.

Expand full comment

All true, but, for obvious reasons, depleted uranium munitions are not in the same class of weapons of mass destruction as nuclear weapons.

Expand full comment

No they are not, but the environment damage as well as causing birth defects is well documented.

Expand full comment