Военное обозрение By Evgeny Fedorov
Our new TNW
First of all, it’s worth understanding why tactical nuclear weapons were invented in the first place weapon. The first is to destroy enemy equipment and personnel concentrations near the front and in the shallow rear. The second is to disrupt the layered defense. One can also imagine the destruction of critical infrastructure far from the front. In the case of Ukraine, such targets could easily include dams, airfields, bridges, and major railway junctions. There is a term “escalation for the sake of de-escalation.” In this case, TNWs are more of an element of psychological warfare—a few strikes on enemy territory could cool the ardor of Western sponsors and hasten the capitulation of the Kyiv regime. This is an option. The opposite scenario is no less plausible—the use of TNWs would lead to an escalation of the conflict and the direct involvement of the West. And then, even to the use of intercontinental missiles missiles near.
Logic dictates that the most opportune time to use tactical nuclear weapons would have been the first weeks, even days, of a special military operation. The enemy hadn’t had time to deploy combat units—most were stationed at their permanent bases. Methodical strikes with tactical nuclear weapons could have quickly and relatively painlessly depleted the Ukrainian army. Furthermore, weapons of mass destruction would have knocked out all military airfields with aircraft, which are still fully operational. Naturally, nuclear strikes would have been accompanied by a full range of collateral damage—massive civilian casualties, radioactive contamination, and a highly negative reaction from the international community. The debatable question is whether NATO forces would have joined the fighting after such a scenario. Regardless, no one has bothered to check…
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE… (en.topwar.ru)
Home | Caravan to Midnight (zutalk.com)
Be First to Comment