www.newsweek.com
Unless you are not in Europe. A tactical nuke, even on a short range missile will not be in range of North America. My issue with HP's statement that it would reach globally.
Size matters as does the range, but they are two different things, there are intermediate range missiles that carry nukes and American nukes have selectable yields with a maximum yield of 500KT right down to tactical nuke levels. So, what is a tactical nuke when they can have selectable yields? It is a distinction without a difference. How would one tell what kind of warhead would be on a short or intermediate range missile? Trust what Putin says?
If he used a tactical one, he would be just as fucked IMHO, what he might do is sabotage the nuclear power plant they occupy, but the Ukrainians won't attack it, they will just cut the Russians who are there off and surround them. Putting tactical nukes on the border is a useless gesture that might lead to them being attacked and captured by cross border partisans. The Russians can't even secure their own borders FFS and if the partisans wanted to, they could have captured nukes stationed there that the Russians had to move in a panic when they attacked.
But they still would not be strategic nukes on other countries outside of Russia.
If a missile was fired from Belarus onto a European city, it would be strategic, no matter what the yield was and the missile need not be intercontinental the nukes of the UK and France don't need to be to reach European Russia where 80% of the population lives Attacking cities is strategic warfare and Russia has been waging it with conventional arms in Ukraine. We are splitting hairs since any use of a nuke would be disastrous and Putin knows it and has not used one yet, even though there have been invasions of Russia by Russian revolutionaries supported and equipped by Ukraine. If any nukes were fired from Belarus, the allies would consider them as used by Russia and the consequences would be the same.
Splitting hairs. You mean I am being factual and you just say whatever you feel like and the details do not mater?
Do the Americans use selectable yield nuclear warheads? I dunno if the Russians do, but it makes the distinction between tactical and strategic moot. The ranges of the missiles need not be intercontinental to be strategic. It is the target that determines if a strike is strategic or tactical, not the size of the warhead and not even the range of the missile or where it is fired from.
It is the range of the missile. The difference is extremely important to the US when talking about putting nukes in one of the bordering Russia countries. There may be more concern in Europe about it than in the US as they would feel the effects of them rather than on US soil. So yes, it does matter to the US (and Canada).
It is the target that determines if a nuclear strike is tactical or strategic. I guess Ukraine had better get into the EU pretty quick so they can have some leverage about whether nukes are placed on the borders of Russian and Belarus. Poland and Lithuania should have no issue with NATO nukes on their turf if Russia has them across the border.
But a tactical will not be able to hit the US.
We have an instance here where someone is enamored of a nonstandard definition, and seeks to generalize it through forceful repetition.
Unless fired from a Russian sub off the coast or fired from a bomber as they are doing in Ukraine for conventional strategic strikes, but are the hits on cities there really strategic in nature or just terrorism? When the allies bombed the cities in Germany it was strategic, supposedly to hamper war production, transport, destroy infrastructure and C&C. When they were attacking the Ukrainian power grid in a concerted effort it was strategic, in that it had a strategic goal, the current conventional attacks on Kyiv don't appear to have a specific goal or to be particularly effective.
Remember, the nukes were to be supplied to the neighbouring countries that bow down to Russia, not put on their subs (which I doubt the satellite countries have). Trying to do a Trump and changing the focus with a sharpie will not work with me.
Ok, what if they gave them to Iran, since they are tight as ticks lately, or is it just Belarus they are talking about? I thought the offer was to anybody who wanted to join up. The purpose of the nukes is not tactical, it is a strategic move, and they are useless as tits on a bull for tactical purposes. NATO is a defensive alliance only and cannot attack Russia or anybody else according to their own rules. If America put short range nukes in Ukraine, it would not be for tactical purposes, it would be for strategic ones. There is no need of them for tactical purposes since the Russian army is fucked for a decade and having nukes is not helping Russia in this war, be they tactical or strategic, on long or short range missiles.
The offer was to get Nato's knickers in a knot, as serious as warning that Russia has nukes and red lines. Iran could have had their own nuke by now, it has increased its capabilities incrementally hoping to get The West back to the negotiating table. The West has not bowed down and left them do as they may. Nato is a defensive organization and would attack anyone according to their rules? Ask Iraq, Syria and Libya.
NATO did not attack those places they did attack Afghanistan though, when America invoked article 5 after 911. Canada did not participate in the second gulf war and neither did a lot of others. All those wars were not NATO affairs and Bush did not dare invoke article 5 over the second gulf war because it was bullshit and the allies knew it.
When I heard the offer, Iran briefly came to mind. I doubt Iran would like to become a de facto SSR.
NATO played a very active supporting role during the first Gulf Crisis and War in 1990-1991