Question in title. Just wondering as I saw France had proposed an initiative to withdraw because of the US’ shenanigans…

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The tactical ones are a grey area. They can be small enough not to end the world. They can also have far less long term effects than the larger and older ones. In short, you could nuke a military base as apposed to a city. They can be delivered as an artilery shell. So if Russia used one. I doubt the world would immediately luanch thier strategic arsenal in response.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      It’s dubious that they have useful nukes available to just drop in an shell to start with. For practical purposes their nukes are fairly large and there are other considerations. Poorly maintained shit may malfunction creating additional doubt as to their military might and it might trigger additional aid by the rest of the world. They can’t actually fight NATO so actions have to be carefully calibrated so as not to bring the rest of the world or even just more of their aid into the fray lest it become even more expensive or even impossible to win.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I will say I don’t know what Russia specifically has in thier arsenal beyond the general “tactical nukes”. But artillery shell or missle… it makes little difference. Tactical nukes are relatively new, so aren’t much of an age concern as the bigger older stuff. Functionality concerns, only they really know. And I agree, which is why I said they are holding back. But if the situation changes, they may not need to hold back.