![]() had eliminated thousands of these weapons from its nuclear arsenal. ![]() revive focus on “low-yield” nuclear weapons?īy 1991, the U.S. Russian President Vladimir Putin has used the threat of so-called tactical nuclear weapons to raise anxiety and win concessions, what observers call “escalating to de-escalate.” Should U.S. Still, the Pentagon built some 2,100 of them before phasing it out of service in 1967.Ī Yars intercontinental ballistic missile being launched from an air field during military drills on Feb. military developers learned in Nevada tests, highly inaccurate. Owing in large part to its “finned watermelon” shape, it was, U.S. “It was this idea that ‘radiation’s not good, but we’ll figure it out later,’” says Nikolai Sokov, senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation in Austria.Īmong the most infamous in this arsenal was the Davy Crockett Tactical Nuclear Weapon, which weighed about 75 pounds and was designed to be launched by a rocket or a gun, giving it a range of less than 3 miles. The United States was cavalier about its own development of “small” atomic weapons shortly after the dawn of the nuclear era in the 1950s, when it produced an array of battlefield nuclear land mines, artillery, and warheads. Mount adds, “it’s the threat that’s meant to do more work than the weapon itself.” Davy Crockett and other “small” atomic weapons Putin’s “escalate to de-escalate” strategy. Mount says.Īnd that is in keeping with Mr. “The risk of Russia using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine is very low, and the public concern over nuclear use has far outstripped the nuclear risk,” Dr. ‘Goodnight Moon’: 75 years in the great green room Particularly given the Biden administration’s efforts to de-escalate when it comes to nuclear rhetoric, analysts stress that the use of such weapons in Ukraine is highly unlikely keeping it that way will be the challenge in the days and months to come. ![]() Putin dipping into his arsenal of battlefield nuclear arms raises the specter of disastrous escalation should NATO retaliate in kind – or the possibility of ushering in a new era in which aggressors can get away with their limited use if it doesn’t. Today, however, speculation surrounding Russian President Vladimir Putin’s potential use of so-called low-yield, or tactical nuclear weapons in his war on Ukraine is sounding atomic alarms for a new generation. Army War College instructor argues “the response would have to be asymmetric,” such as a devastating attack on the Russian navy’s Black Sea fleet. And, if used, NATO forces “wouldn’t respond in kind” in Ukraine since it would grievously harm civilians and divide NATO, says retired Col. “His standard operating procedure is to inject nuclear weapons into nonnuclear crises – hypothetically to induce restraint in his adversaries and raise anxiety, which might make it easier for him to accomplish his objectives,” says Adam Mount, director of the Defense Posture Project at the Federation of American Scientists.Īnalysts say the use of such weapons in Ukraine is highly unlikely. Putin could also gain concessions through the mere threat to go nuclear, implicit though it has been. Part 1 of an occasional series on issues of morality in warfare. and NATO allies, it calls for careful thinking about both deterrence and response. The risk that Vladimir Putin might deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine is considered low.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |