Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Tactical nuclear weapons are small-scale enough that unless a large number were used, there would be very little concern about fallout affecting other areas. Tactical nukes are an entirely plausible tool in a conflict with a neighbouring country.
It's arguable that the thermobaric weapons Russia has already used are basically the same scale of destruction, they just don't result in a news banner on CNN that reads "RUSSIA NUKES UKRAINE - IS USA NEXT?".
|
And those thermobaric weapons didn't seem to help Russians achieve much. Will tactical nukes make any tangible difference comparing to weeks of shelling? Would Mariupol be in any different shape if it was nuked rather than shelled? Are tactical nukes really a game changer from military perspective?