Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointman
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?
|
Yes, essentially even a tactical nuke will pretty much deny the bombed area to Ukraines soldiers, and the likely immediate effects from the radiation blast would kill soldiers away from the bast zone. Also it would do more to kill civillians with the thermal pulse and short and long term radiation effects.
Mariupol for example would be blasted in a similar effect. But more civillians would die from the long and short term effects, and that area would be use denied for years.
Tactical nukes can be a game changer against militaries that aren't equipt to fight and survive in a nuclear environment. The problem has always been the command and control in terms of using them. I don't know how it works now, but under the Soviet system, all nukes were controlled not by the army and navy, but the KGB. So by the time you got permission, got the weapons armed and loaded by KGB handlers, the battlefield requirements had likely changed. The American's are more efficient. Once nuclear weapons are authorized their firing and control falls into the hands of the theatre commander, so permission to deploy is a lot faster.