Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Will Putin Utilize Tactical Nuclear Weapons?


Raptor Witness
 Share

Will Putin Utilize Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine  

8 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Putin Utilize Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine

  2. 2. If Yes. by What Date?

    • On or Before April 2, 2022
    • On or Before July 3, 2022
    • On or Before October 31, 2022
    • On or Before December 25, 2022
  3. 3. Will Putin Use Chernobyl as a Cover for a Demonstration?


This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 04/02/2022 at 08:52 PM

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

You're using a war to suit your religious narrative, its disgusting.

Since when do you dictate what other people can and cannot discuss?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Since when do you dictate what other people can and cannot discuss?

Not saying he can or cant saying its disgusting. Am I not allowed an opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Not saying he can or cant saying its disgusting. Am I not allowed an opinion?

Perhaps you should be mindful of your own personal triggers rather than taking them out on him.

I want to hear his views, they are relevant to the debate.

Edited by Cookie Monster
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cookie Monster said:

Perhaps you should be mindful of your own personal triggers rather than taking them out on him.

Pot and kettle springs to mind.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is a pathetic attempt at self glorification.:rolleyes:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2022 at 2:28 AM, Raptor Witness said:

The question is, what happens after a couple of tactical nuclear arms are fired, and what do the Germans and the Turks do? NATO could split over the use of these weapons.

The Germans and Turks are likely to do the same as a collective NATO - nothing.

Putin will use warhead-armed missiles by the end of this - I am very much convinced of that. I suspect nukes are what will effectively end the Ukrainain-Russo war, analogous to what prompted the Japanese surrender to the US in WW2 - the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. 

The EU response could differ greatly, however, assuming that Ukraine is accepted into their ranks, as they have a defence clause that is not dissimilar to Article 5 of NATO's defence clause.

Either way, I think the end of this war is going to be utterly perilous, on a global scale. It is getting bloodier, and the killing more indiscriminate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

The Germans and Turks are likely to do the same as a collective NATO - nothing.

Putin will use warhead-armed missiles by the end of this - I am very much convinced of that. I suspect nukes are what will effectively end the Ukrainain-Russo war, analogous to what prompted the Japanese surrender to the US in WW2 - the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. 

The EU response could differ greatly, however, assuming that Ukraine is accepted into their ranks, as they have a defence clause that is not dissimilar to Article 5 of NATO's defence clause.

Either way, I think the end of this war is going to be utterly perilous, on a global scale. It is getting bloodier, and the killing more indiscriminate.

Alot of people are saying Putler will use nukes, im not too convinced myself.

I just think to myself, what if we deployed troops in Ukraine before Putler invaded? Who they have invaded with NATO troops in there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

The Germans and Turks are likely to do the same as a collective NATO - nothing.

Putin will use warhead-armed missiles by the end of this - I am very much convinced of that. I suspect nukes are what will effectively end the Ukrainain-Russo war, analogous to what prompted the Japanese surrender to the US in WW2 - the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. 

The EU response could differ greatly, however, assuming that Ukraine is accepted into their ranks, as they have a defence clause that is not dissimilar to Article 5 of NATO's defence clause.

Either way, I think the end of this war is going to be utterly perilous, on a global scale. It is getting bloodier, and the killing more indiscriminate.

The only way to take Ukraine with NATO providing weapons is to use tactical nukes.

Putin will soon rationalise that so long as he doesnt use nukes on the USA, France or Britain, that he will get away with it. He will, except for completely isolating Russia. He can nuke to his heart is content and USA, France, and Britain, will not respond as that will mean the annihilation of their own populations.

If he goes for it NATO will also collapse when the USA, France and Britain, refuse to sacrifice themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment there are nations not actively objecting to Russian actions or cutting Russia off from various trade or financial arrangements.

If Putin used a nuke of any type it would force the hand of many who have tried to stay out of the argument.

I cannot see China being able to maintain their present position, if a nuke was used, without risking their own long term plans and a big manufacturing sector.

India would also have to fall into line with the west.

There would also be no option but to cut off all energy supplies in EU from Russia irrespective of short term economic harm.  

Even Putin surrounded by yes men should know that nukes are not an option. :wacko:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

The only way to take Ukraine with NATO providing weapons is to use tactical nukes.

Putin will soon rationalise that so long as he doesnt use nukes on the USA, France or Britain, that he will get away with it. He will, except for completely isolating Russia. He can nuke to his heart is content and USA, France, and Britain, will not respond as that will mean the annihilation of their own populations.

If he goes for it NATO will also collapse when the USA, France and Britain, refuse to sacrifice themselves.

Are you channeling Neville Chamberlain and his response to Hitler?   Didn't work for him in the long run.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if s nuclear expression is any less dangerous as the continuing blatant lies from Russia.

Apparently, according to Russia, it's ok to slaughter civilians and claim "false-flag"

It's a wonder anyone believes them about ANYTHING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

America won't survive if we base our decisions on keeping Putin happy.

I said nothing in support of Putin.  I pointed to the dangers of escalation.  I've also said, quite clearly, that we may not be able to avoid a nuclear exchange.  IF he decides to continue down this path of reviving the USSR, we'll have no choice but to fight.  Rushing into it seems insane though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, and then said:

I said nothing in support of Putin.  I pointed to the dangers of escalation.  I've also said, quite clearly, that we may not be able to avoid a nuclear exchange.  IF he decides to continue down this path of reviving the USSR, we'll have no choice but to fight.  Rushing into it seems insane though.

I know people have said this all through the cold war but I honestly think I'll see WW3 in my life time. Putler seems to be getting more erratic with age, almost as if hes losing it or he could actually be dieing like the rumours say and may just go out with a bang.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

I know people have said this all through the cold war but I honestly think I'll see WW3 in my life time. Putler seems to be getting more erratic with age, almost as if hes losing it or he could actually be dieing like the rumours say and may just go out with a bang.

He began the process of destabilizing the nuclear order back in 2000 or so.  He began speaking about using nukes in a CONVENTIONAL conflict as a means of "defending" Russia.  There was a period during the 50s and early 60s where low yield, battlefield, or "tactical" nukes were an integrated part of the war plan for NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations but as times changed we began to rely on overwhelming use of these weapons so that everyone would fear global annihilation if they were used.

He saw Russia kicked from the top tier of powerful nations when the USSR collapsed and made the decision to keep a place at that table through threats of using nukes that were "small" enough to destroy a base, or even a city, but not so large that it would guarantee retaliation in kind.  When he changed the rules he opened the door to madness.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, and then said:

He began the process of destabilizing the nuclear order back in 2000 or so.  He began speaking about using nukes in a CONVENTIONAL conflict as a means of "defending" Russia.  There was a period during the 50s and early 60s where low yield, battlefield, or "tactical" nukes were an integrated part of the war plan for NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations but as times changed we began to rely on overwhelming use of these weapons so that everyone would fear global annihilation if they were used.

He saw Russia kicked from the top tier of powerful nations when the USSR collapsed and made the decision to keep a place at that table through threats of using nukes that were "small" enough to destroy a base, or even a city, but not so large that it would guarantee retaliation in kind.  When he changed the rules he opened the door to madness.

Absolute bonkers. He needs taking out and I do advocate us going into Ukraine. Otherwise hes just gonna want more and more and take and take, thousands more will die. I wouldn't be surprised if NATO got something up their sleeve to counter the nuclear threat of Putler they're not telling us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, and then said:

I said nothing in support of Putin.  I pointed to the dangers of escalation.  I've also said, quite clearly, that we may not be able to avoid a nuclear exchange.  IF he decides to continue down this path of reviving the USSR, we'll have no choice but to fight.  Rushing into it seems insane though.

**** gonna hit the fan. That's for sure. I think your right about him using tact nukes if doesn't get what he wants in the end.

But if you look at it both ways, one way or another, like I said in the other thread, it's one of those it's the hammer or the nail situation now. Because I don't see him giving up on the land grab no matter what is proposed to him in the name of peace. He wants Ukraine bad and would probably want more after that. I think were all screwed since the little piece of **** got into power. I'ma beginning to think that it was only a matter of time before it got to this point.

Edited by Gunn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

He needs taking out 

This is not so easy. Putin's influence and power is far-reaching, and his efforts towards self-preservation are meticulous at worst. He has a highly sophisticated luxury bunker. He has different groups of people that suss out potential assassination plots months in advance, a group that act as "IT" tech to allow him to jam/intercept communications and radio signals for bomb detonations etc. He drives in a heavily armoured convoy, he has a food taster. To add, he is basically deified by those of whom he has hand-selected to serve him. Taking him out would likely be more difficult than trying to assassinate Hitler during WW2.

Quote

and I do advocate us going into Ukraine.

That is absolutely ridiculous. If a NATO member sets foot in Ukraine to act as defenders that would act as the proverbial final nail in the coffin, leading Putin to unleash a nuclear hellfire on Ukraine et al. Unfortunately, the longer this war drags out without a NATO country stepping in, the better; it will give people time they need to form a solid plan to remove Putin, if any kind of attempt is to be made.

4 hours ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Otherwise hes just gonna want more and more and take and take, thousands more will die.

There is no other alternative to Putin's greed. That is essentially his modus operandi; he wants as much as he can get, and will always seek more. It won't matter if NATO steps in to help Ukraine - he will want more anyway. That will never stop. And thousands upon thousands are going to die anyway, regardless.

4 hours ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

I wouldn't be surprised if NATO got something up their sleeve to counter the nuclear threat of Putler they're not telling us.

That is, of course, what they want you to believe; they want you to think that you are safe from nukes, because as leaders they need to ensure that there is peace and stability within their country via whatever means necessary (at least good leaders do). They can't risk fears of nuclear annihilation crippling their economy and civil stability further, especially post-COVID. 

The unfortunate reality is, based on available information, US test results of missile defence systems are somewhat mixed, which isn't very reassuring. For example, ground missile defence systems have only about a 70% success rate of hitting their intended targets in simulations. This means that for every 10 missiles, 3 of the targets are missed. That could mean three major US cities are completely levelled; bear in mind that this is also in the absence of real combat scenarios, as it likely didn't account for the magnitude of decoys that would be used. Decoys would make it almost impossible for a real defence system to be effective.

Who knows? Maybe there is some highly sophisticated defence system that will completely shield countries from nukes, but I really doubt it. It might get a few, but the overwhelming majority will penetrate those defences.

If Putin starts lobbing nukes at NATO countries, we are all absolutely and completely ****ED. For at least ten years, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, and then said:

I said nothing in support of Putin.  I pointed to the dangers of escalation.  I've also said, quite clearly, that we may not be able to avoid a nuclear exchange.  IF he decides to continue down this path of reviving the USSR, we'll have no choice but to fight.  Rushing into it seems insane though.

Agreed.  I wasn't contradicting you, I know you don't support Putin's actions.  just  adding  my own thoughts. I do not think we should  provoke a war by sending NATO troops into Ukraine.  We should not start the escalation, but we cannot run from it.

If we do not stand up to Putin's threats of using a nuclear weapon, then we no longer have any deterrence, not only with Putin but  just as important with China or any other nuclear capable nation.  We cannot make our public policy that Ukrainian lives or Taiwanese lives or any other countries sovereignty is less important than Putin dropping a bomb on us.  "Do what you want to the rest of the world, just leave us alone",  will not buy us very much time IMO. 

We may have a chance with most of the world on one side that if any nation uses nuclear weapons, they can expect a  severe response, not guaranteed to be nuclear, but on a par. The consequences of that are so horrible that  the entire world might want to take a step back. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Absolute bonkers. He needs taking out and I do advocate us going into Ukraine. Otherwise hes just gonna want more and more and take and take, thousands more will die. I wouldn't be surprised if NATO got something up their sleeve to counter the nuclear threat of Putler they're not telling us.

I see this attitude a lot these days.  I agree that he's a war criminal and that what's happening to Ukraine is an obscenity but assuming that he either will not use a nuke or that we somehow can magically stop the effects of such a use is not something I consider to be logical, rational, or even worthy of contemplating seriously.  As I've said, it MAY turn out that he will force us to fight him by choosing to attack a  NATO nation but until then we should approach him with caution.  He has a history of "short guy syndrome" and when a guy like that has nukes, it pays to be circumspect in handling him.

There are Russian commentators already referring to this as "WWIII" after the sinking of the Moskva.  I don't think Putin is insane but I do think he has blundered spectacularly and he needs to be given a small amount of room to find a way out of this mess without having to face utter humiliation.  In short, I think he'd be perfectly capable of using a low-yield airburst weapon over a Ukrainian city.  My guess is that he'd want to send a strong message to NATO and he'd hit a city close to their borders.  Lviv could be shattered by a 5KT airburst and there would be very limited fallout.  Remember that U.S. forces were occupying Hiroshima and Nagasaki within 60 days of those bombs detonating in the air over the targets.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2022 at 12:28 AM, Raptor Witness said:

but his simple argument was that no weapon, produced by men, would fail to eventually be utilized in war.

Except it already HAS been used in a war.  I fully expect a nuclear war at some point because there are multiple scripture references to a plague that perfectly fits the damage a nuke does to a human body.  After the battle described in Ezekiel 38-39, there is mention of "cleansing the land" - 

‘After the seven months they will carry out a more detailed search.  As they go through the land, anyone who sees a human bone will leave a marker beside it until the gravediggers bury it in the Valley of Hamon Gog,  near a town called Hamonah.[c] And so they will cleanse the land.’

This is the kind of system we'd use today to dispose of potentially dangerous materials after a war with nukes.  These people leaving "markers" where bones are found are men of "continual employment".  That sounds like specialists who'd be payed to remediate the pollution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2022 at 4:44 AM, Raptor Witness said:

He could resort to tactical nuclear weapons if the Ukrainians continue to violate Russian soil.

Where is the proof that they HAVE violated Russian territory?  I think he'd use a LY airburst over a border area where weapons are being brought in from NATO.  At that point, NATO will reciprocate or it will be effectively dissolved.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2022 at 3:10 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi And Then

Not once have I seen anyone bring up anti-ballistic missiles systems, any nuke launched is a nuclear attack and would be known at launch and a response would be given.

The kind of nuke I'm talking about could EASILY be attached to the hardpoints on a jet and launched into the area with enough time for the aircraft to be safely away.  Israel routinely bombs targets in Syria while never entering Syrian airspace.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Do what you want to the rest of the world, just leave us alone",  will not buy us very much time IMO. 

Agreed and this is why I think the emphasis now should be in presenting a united front against his aggression.  He needs to understand that what he has started in Ukraine, regardless of how it concludes, is his ONLY adventure where he can threaten the world with nukes of any size and expect the world not to respond in kind or worse.  

As it is now, he has created a situation where Russia has become a global Pariah state and there doesn't seem to be any way back from that.  Hopefully, there are some back channel negotiations where incentives are being offered to his immediate cadre of staff and advisors.  IF someone would take him out, maybe the world can recover from this without a nuclear war.  He has flipped the script where MAD is concerned and the uncertainty is far more dangerous than anything we've seen since MAD became an accepted doctrine for the world's nuke states.

I keep thinking about how we would handle this if he or Xi were putting troops and weapons in Mexico and we were losing thousands of troops while we were prosecuting a war that we felt justified in engaging in.  Would we strike the supply convoys, even outside Mexico's borders?  It isn't a perfect analogy but you get the idea.  In his place, we WOULD ACT in what we considered our best interests and it wouldn't matter if we realized we had blundered.  

So... if you were calling the shots, would you retaliate with a nuke on his forces if he used one on a Ukrainian city?  I think that in that game of poker, we'd all be holding aces and eights :( 

Edited by and then
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

You're using a war to suit your religious narrative, its disgusting.

The 2,000 year old forecast of “fire from heaven, performed in full view on men,” is a valid assessment of our present situation. regardless of the source. It’s contextually accurate.

The even older  2,500 year old forecast of an “abomination that would result in places on earth becoming uninhabitable by men, or desolate, but where animals will remain,” is equally remarkable, regardless of the source.

The truth, told by those inspired to speak truth to power, regardless of the inspiration, is powerful on its own, irrespective of any religion.

Many species have come and gone on the Earth, but none were destroyed by their own means. Thus, any warning of such a rare phenomenon, is valid. 

What right do men have to rule, over a Garden, which we didn’t create, and which we place in such peril?

The “founder of our DNA,” can speak through whatever mechanism or agent It chooses, as evidenced by the recent rise of a deadly pandemic.

Watch, therefore, your own seed of power, as it withers like snow in a hurricane. Post #4 - https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/335667-earth-fighting-back/?do=findComment&comment=6974555

Source Post #24

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, and then said:

So... if you were calling the shots, would you retaliate with a nuke on his forces if he used one on a Ukrainian city?  I think that in that game of poker, we'd all be holding aces and eights

You are asking a fat old man who has no military training, but I would not. However, Russia does not get one nuclear freebee.  If they use a nuke, it must be the end of Putin's administration and Russian forces withdrawn from Ukraine.

All electronic and physical commerce to Russia shut off,  especially petroleum out and electronics in.  Initially social networks still on.    It hurts us all financially, but not as much as expanding a nuclear war.  No incursions into Russian territory.  

Putin has already threatened us with consequences for supplying Ukraine.  I would have taken that seriously.  Start calling on all of our friends and sound the red alert.   Make sure all allies are prepared to defend against hacking and preparing to launch countermeasures.    It might be a good idea to suggest banks other financial institutions and large corporations review their disaster drills  Neutralize all Russian internet activity as soon as we detect any hostility and then strike back hard.  Initially, it might be limited  to  destructive hacking in small area, with the implied message that if Russia does not  withdraw from Ukraine, there would be more to follow.  Meanwhile of course military will be standing ready to take out any Russian surface ship or submarine that carries nuclear warheads. Just as they are everyday.

Striking Russian cities and civilians seems like a very bad idea.  We have seen the power of economics in war, and recently even the power of social media to sway public opinion and affect war readiness.  Rather than Putin, it is the  Russian people that deserve  a way out. 

As they say no plan survives the first punch in the face, and I am not even a very good computer war gamer, so my opinion is not worth a lot.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.