There has been a lot of speculation about Russia using a nuclear weapon against Ukraine.
The first concern came at the beginning of the war when Russia said it was putting its nuclear forces on high alert. Not only were people worried about Russia and its nuclear weapons, but also how the West would respond to Russia’s invasion, especially when it was so close to NATO countries, which the United States is obligated to protect.
Once days, weeks, then months passed with the war dragging on but no nuclear attack, people began to relax. But only so much.
The war, advertised as a “three-day special operation”, stretched out into months and threatens to last longer as Ukraine defied all speculation (and – worse – Russian advisors to Putin) and not only prevented Russia from defeating Ukraine, but actually has recaptured territory and massacred Russian troops, hardware, and officers.
So the nuclear threat has reared its ugly head again. This time as a means to prevent Russia from losing against what it considered an inferior enemy. Face it, the war is not going well for Russia, and now has had to resort to calling in the reserves to augment its depleted forces. Some reports are that the limited mobilization reaches far further than announced.
Whether Russia will resort to a nuclear weapon in its war against Ukraine is something that the entire world is speculating.
The question no one is asking, however, is what would a nuclear attack actually look like, and what would be the immediate results?
Let’s say that Russia has decided – for whatever reason – to launch a limited nuclear strike. (No one suspects Russia to launch a full-scale attack against NATO targets in the first salvo, so we will confine our examination to a single attack.)
Russia – broadly – has two types of weapons available: Tactical and Strategic. Each of these can be broken down into explosive power, generally defined as kiloton and megaton.
Tactical weapons are the small, battlefield and small target weapons. Strategic are the big bombs, designed to take out large targets, cities, etc., and inflict massive damage. Tactical weapons are designed to keep nuclear war limited. Strategic weapons are supposed to either frighten the enemy into backing down or to eliminate his war-making capability.
When using a nuclear weapon, the attacker has two choices on where to detonate it. In the air (an “air burst”) or near the ground (a “ground burst”).
Air bursts will destroy a large area with heat and air pressure but produce little radioactive fallout. This is because particles are ionized (irradiated) by the main fireball. This fireball barely touches the ground in an airburst, so will produce little ionized particles.
Ground bursts are designed to destroy hardened targets. Missile silos, dug-in (bomb proof) facilities like NATO headquarters, runways, things like that. These weapons need more power concentrated in a smaller area, and so are detonated closer to the ground. They therefore have a smaller footprint. This is why your “city killers” are airburst. Wider area of destruction, as opposed to ground burst.
Ground burst weapons, however, put out a lot of fallout. Again, that ionizing fireball being closer to the ground means more particles being exposed to the irradiating ionization.
Our article, You Can Survive Nuclear War, details how much fallout is produced by an airburst and ground burst.
Should Russia decide to attack Ukraine, it is very likely to be by a tactical weapon, air burst over its target. So little (but not zero) fallout would be produced, and thus little fallout would drift over into Russia.
Russia could decide to do a demonstration strike over a body of water. This would be designed simply to frighten Ukraine and the West.
More likely, any nuclear use would be over either a military target or city. While Russia could deploy a tactical nuclear weapon over enemy troops, it would need to be a sizable target or the weapon would be wasted. Hence why Russia will not use it to secure the front line. Still, if for a demonstration, it isn’t outside the realm of possibility.
Some believe that, in war, you don’t destroy the leadership as you need someone alive to negotiate surrender. This would leave Kyiv off the target list. In theory.
So, odds are a Ukrainian target would be picked, it would be military, and it would be airburst, producing some but not a lot of fallout. Radiation would spread according to local weather patterns, but generally to the East. Nuclear Secrecy has an excellent online programme called NukeMap where you can simulate a nuclear detonation and see the ring of destruction.
Once the nuclear genie is out, the next movement is the West’s. The United States has already said there would be significant consequences, but what those are have been deliberately ambiguous. What exactly could the West do? Provide even better weapons? Enforce a no-fly zone? Become involved directly?
Should a nuclear weapon be used, it will be a game changer.
Would Russia do it? Could Russia accept defeat in Ukraine? Or would it pay any price to win? Does it even believe the West has it in them to inflict a price? Ah, that is the question that will determine what would happen next!
