Follow live the latest news about the war in Ukraine
These types of nuclear weapons have little effectiveness at the military level, on the battlefield
March 26 () –
Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced an agreement with Belarus for the deployment of Russian tactical nuclear bombs on Belarusian soil in response to Britain’s announcement that it will deliver depleted uranium ammunition to the Ukrainian Army.
Depleted uranium ammunition is mainly used to pierce the armor of military vehicles such as main battle tanks or troop carriers and is also useful against the hull of warships.
Tactical nuclear weapons are by definition those that have battlefield utility, actual military use against a hostile force, and the most widespread academic definition is that they are bombs of between 1 and 50 kilotons mounted on projectiles with a range up to 500 kilometers.
To have an idea of its magnitude, we can remember that the bomb dropped by the United States on Hiroshima in 1945 was 15 kilotons and was launched from a bomber. Tactical nuclear weapons however can be delivered in the case of Russia from ships, planes and even by ground forces.
They are much more destructive than a conventional warhead even though they have the same explosive energy and cause radiation contamination that affects the air, soil, water and the food chain.
These types of tactical nuclear weapons have not been included in any nuclear arms control agreement and medium-range nuclear weapons were only in the Medium-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, in force from 1987 to 2018.
DETERRENCE CAPACITY
Strategic nuclear weapons, on the other hand, have the deterrence and mutually assured destruction capability that dominated the Cold War. The United States and Russia have reduced their arsenal of these weapons from 19,000 and 35,000 to 3,700 and 4,480 by January 2022.
“Large-scale nuclear attacks are considered unfeasible. Strategic nuclear weapons are losing their deterrent value in a war between nuclear powers. Tactical nuclear weapons are more likely to be used, in theory, so their possession would strengthen deterrence of a country,” said Nina Srinivasan Rathbun, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California, United States.
Despite their greater power, the military utility of tactical nuclear weapons is questionable, as bombs with conventional explosives are becoming more powerful, to the point that the United States has reduced their number. Most of its arsenal of 150 B61 gravity nuclear bombs is in Europe.
France and the UK have completely eliminated their tactical arsenals, although Pakistan, China, India, North Korea and Israel do have such bombs.
QUESTIONABLE MILITARY UTILITY
US military studies have concluded that a one kiloton tactical nuclear bomb would need to be detonated within 90 meters of a main battle tank to cause serious damage. Studies of its use in a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan suggest that a 5-kiloton Pakistani tactical nuclear bomb used against a regiment of Indian main battle tanks could destroy about 13 tanks.
Russia, for its part, has some 2,000 tactical nuclear bombs that play a very important role in its nuclear strategy, mainly due to its lower capacity and technological advances in conventional weapons.
They are mostly prepared for use on air-to-surface missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, gravity bombs, and depth charges carried by medium-range tactical bombers or by anti-ship or anti-submarine torpedoes.
In recent years, Russia has developed dual-use conventional and nuclear missiles, which has caused some concern in Washington, since it is not known until the last moment what type of explosive head it is carrying. In particular, the manufacture of the Iskander-M missiles has been extended, which have already been used to attack specific targets in Ukraine, always with non-nuclear explosives.
However, the use of Russian nuclear weapons in Ukraine does not seem very logical. “I think it would not achieve any military objective. It would contaminate the territory that Russia considers part of its historical empire and would probably affect Russia itself. It would increase the chances of direct NATO intervention and destroy Russia’s image in the world,” he said. riveted Nina Srinivasan Rathbun.
For this reason, its deployment in Belarus has more to do with the Tsar Bomb, a hydrogen bomb developed by the Soviet Union and detonated in the Barents Sea. It had more than 50 megatons of power and its size made it not very useful at the war level, but it fulfilled its function at the propaganda level.
