Use of tactical nuclear weapons

[AndySfromVA]

There's been a lot of news lately about the possibility that Russia may use tactical nuclear weapons to subdue Ukraine. No one (except for Putin) wants to see that happen but it makes me wonder if using tactical nuclear weapons makes sense in a battlefield context. While they are less damaging than strategic nuclear weapons (under 50 kilotons vs at least 100 kilotons) the fact is that the Hiroshima bomb was only 15 kilotons so tactical nuclear weapons are incredibly destructive. Wouldn't their use make Ukraine unlivable for the attacking Russians and even spread radiation to the surrounding countries, including Russia itself?

[warspite1]

Sadly there is an obvious answer to this but its political so l’ll leave it. I’ll simply state the bleedin’ obvious; Nuclear weapons - battlefield or otherwise would have unimaginable consequences in the modern world.

[Aurelian]

Using such weapons is a political decision. So I'll just say what another politician said. "Don't. Don't. Don't."

[AndySfromVA]

Using such weapons is a political decision. So I'll just say what another politician said. "Don't. Don't. Don't."

I agree, but we don't have access to Putin's mindset. He may use them, even if it makes no sense from a battlefield standpoint. But what if he chooses to do so, is there anything any other country can do about it? Will NATO take military action? Very troubling but these questions must be asked.

[PipFromSlitherine]

As said, this is much too close to politics to leave it running.

Cheers

Pip