Thank you for the rebut, but the point still remains. When you tamp a fission bomb down to a very low, dirty yield, you make it about as powerful as a "conventional" weapon, like a fuel-air bomb, so what's the point? And still, where would you use it, your newly "liberated" and annexed territory? Other than simply starting a world-wid…
Thank you for the rebut, but the point still remains. When you tamp a fission bomb down to a very low, dirty yield, you make it about as powerful as a "conventional" weapon, like a fuel-air bomb, so what's the point? And still, where would you use it, your newly "liberated" and annexed territory? Other than simply starting a world-wide conflagration, the only possible targets are in western Ukraine, turning the country on their western border into a disaster area full of poisoned refugees. I'm very sure it's a bluff.
I wasn't rebutting your post, just providing more facts. Here's another fact that may be relevant: ISW has concluded that Russian forces' abilities are so limited that they would not be able to operate in zones that had been hit by tactical nuclear weapons. They would, in effect, be blocking their own movements. I think we can all agree that if Putin decided to use nuclear weapons, it would be stupid and self-defeating. In any case, he has shied away from directly threatening the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine -- just veiled references to get the imaginations of "realists" in the West in an uproar.
Thanks for the additional facts! Frankly, I'm not sure anyone has the ability to safely operate in a zone hit by a nuclear weapon, which may be one of the many reasons why they're so seldomly used -- how can you claim to be "liberating" an area that you've rendered uninhabitable? This is just Putin, the Unclothed Emperor, waggling the only saber he has left.
And please don't be afraid of a good rebut. Refreshing!
Thank you for the rebut, but the point still remains. When you tamp a fission bomb down to a very low, dirty yield, you make it about as powerful as a "conventional" weapon, like a fuel-air bomb, so what's the point? And still, where would you use it, your newly "liberated" and annexed territory? Other than simply starting a world-wide conflagration, the only possible targets are in western Ukraine, turning the country on their western border into a disaster area full of poisoned refugees. I'm very sure it's a bluff.
I wasn't rebutting your post, just providing more facts. Here's another fact that may be relevant: ISW has concluded that Russian forces' abilities are so limited that they would not be able to operate in zones that had been hit by tactical nuclear weapons. They would, in effect, be blocking their own movements. I think we can all agree that if Putin decided to use nuclear weapons, it would be stupid and self-defeating. In any case, he has shied away from directly threatening the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine -- just veiled references to get the imaginations of "realists" in the West in an uproar.
Thanks for the additional facts! Frankly, I'm not sure anyone has the ability to safely operate in a zone hit by a nuclear weapon, which may be one of the many reasons why they're so seldomly used -- how can you claim to be "liberating" an area that you've rendered uninhabitable? This is just Putin, the Unclothed Emperor, waggling the only saber he has left.
And please don't be afraid of a good rebut. Refreshing!