“Tactical” nuclear weapons, strategic implications… We explain to you the new threats from Moscow

In every speech of Vladimir Putin, the same refrain. After announcing demobilization in the country, the Russian president hinted at possible support for nuclear weapons on Tuesday, September 27. “Territorial Integration” Russia was threatened. An alert was issued to Ukrainian forces, while four of Ukraine’s occupied territories staged mock referendums on annexation. A resumption of the nuclear strike hypothesis has been described by some observers “Tactical”In order to regain the military effort on the ground, as opposed to strikes “strategy”. It remains to be seen what these terms cover.

“There is no nuclear weapon with the label ‘tactical’, this designation is above all an intellectual construct”, A consultant who specialized in weapons immediately corrected Stephen Autrand. This expression generally refers to the use of nuclear technology for operational purposes in the theater of war. As for the so-called “strategic” nuclear weapons, they are essentially long-range, and are considered by a state when its supreme interests, its territorial integrity, or its survival are threatened.

“This distinction dates back to the early 1950s.”, Jean-Louis Lozier, former head of the “nuclear” division of the French civil service, told franceinfo. Also in the 1970s, “France itself developed its ‘tactical’ deterrent weapons – the Hades and Pluton missiles – capable of a range of 120 kilometers.. This difference persists “Until the day the great powers realize that any use of nuclear power has real strategic implications”.

As a general rule, so-called tactical or non-strategic weapons are distinguished “by their power, weapons systems and type of application”, Stephen Autrand in brief. But the outlines are very faint. “So-called ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons are designed to engage targets up to 300 kilometers away.It states thus A NATO document (in English)But can also engage in tasks “functional” And “strategy”.

The number limits of the New Beginning bilateral agreement signed in 2010 between the United States and Russia“Standed Strategic Warships” by both countries, according to the principle of equality, without reference to others. But in total, Russia has about 4,477 nuclear weapons “Employed” Where “saved”According to an account published in March In Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (in English). Of them, 1,912 are warships “Irrational and Defensive” : Surface to Air Missiles, Short Range Ballistic Missiles, Torpedoes etc.

The “Iskander” and “Kalibr” missiles widely used in Ukraine can be equipped with nuclear warheads. This is why we speak of “dual potential vectors”: regular and nuclear. The announcement went relatively unnoticed, but last May the Russian Defense Ministry conducted electronic simulations of a nuclear-capable Iskander firing in the Kaliningrad enclave. “The modification of these missiles, despite everything, requires significant logistics that have been observed by Western intelligence services”Jean-Louis Lozier says.

Their power is estimated at between one and 100 kilotons (TNT equivalent), 150, 200, 500 or more “strategic” warheads. Thus, it can be compared to the explosion of the port of Beirut in Lebanon – 2 kilotons – or the American bomb dropped on Hiroshima in Japan in 1945 – 15 kilotons. thereby, “It is not very appropriate to differentiate these weapons by power”Jean-Louis Losier insists.

The idea of ​​”tactical” strikes, with an operational purpose, above all comes up against the realities on the ground. “What’s in it for us to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine?” asks the Russian deputy Andriy Kurulev (Link in Russian)Reserve Lt. Gen. “We already have all kinds of non-nuclear weapons to win and win.”. without forgetting “Our people should live in Ukraine”He adds, referring to the material consequences of such a strike.

The potential military benefits are actually minimal. “The troop density in Ukraine is very low, especially compared to World War IIAs Stephen Autrand asserts, And I have serious doubts about the ability of the Russian military to operate in the radioactive zone.” Another hypothesis: a show of force as an ultimatum, Union of Concerned Scientists writes (in English), a group of independent scientists. By detonating a nuclear weapon over the Black Sea, for example, if Ukrainian forces approach Crimea.

“To be effective, multiple ‘tactical’ strikes would have to be used because the Ukrainian territory is large. But anyway, any use will have strategic consequences.”

Jean-Louis Lozier, Ifry’s adviser

At franceinfo

Such weapons could certainly destroy modern infrastructure such as bridges or thermal power plants. But at what cost? Such initiatives would break the “embargo” that has been in place since 1945 and put Russia in a blockade of nations. I don’t believe China will welcome the end of the nuclear banAdds Jean-Louis Lozier.

Perhaps, unless other less rational factors are taken into account. “The use of nuclear weapons poses no practical, moral or strategic problem for Putin, on the contrary”Supports Inside Le Figaro Julianne Theron, Co-Editor Putin, Strategy of Anarchy. “Unlike the Westerners, the Russians retained a doctrinal approach [de la guerre froide]“Stéphane Audrand is abundant. “Tactical nuclear weapons can help adjust the situation in the theater of war.”

In particular, Article 19 Ukes on nuclear deterrence (PDF in Russian)Dated 2020, it provides an opportunity to use these weapons in the following cases: Data “reliable” on a ballistic missile that strikes Russia or its allies; use of nuclear weapons by an enemy; An attack on critical sites threatens the possibility of a Russian nuclear response; Aggression with conventional weapons threatens the existence of the state.

“Russia has the right to use nuclear weapons if necessary. In predetermined cases. In accordance with the basic principles of nuclear deterrence.”

Dmitry Medvedev, former President of Russia

on his Telegram account

This last point, with its vague formula, has sparked debate among researchers. It should be noted that “the presence of Russia” (…) “Vladimir Putin’s vision can have a broad definition.”Political scientist Bruno Tertris points out in an article published by Great continent. “Additionally, some Western statements may have increased Moscow’s anxiety.” However, nothing at this point “The deliberate use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine cannot be justified or a fortiori against NATO”evaluates Geneva Center for Security Policy (in English).

Washington, for its part, says it takes these threats seriously. However, without observing any elements in this direction. “We see no reason to adjust our own nuclear posture at this time.”A White House spokesman was quoted as saying on Sunday The New York Times (in English). Already in May, the CIA had caught the disease “Certain Evidence that Russia Plans to Deploy or Use Tactical Nuclear Weapons”Quoted in the words of its director, William Burns Financial Times (in English).

“We are entering a period of uncertainty, even if the employment probability is very low.”

Stephen Adrant is a consultant specializing in weapons

At franceinfo

Shortly after the war began, Vladimir Putin was already there “be careful” Nuclear deterrence. Without it military movements result. “The Grammar of Strategic Dialogue at Work”To paraphrase Stephen Audrey, at this point, “No real break in nuclear embargo”.

Vladimir Putin’s warning appears to have been sent primarily to Kyiv, which is continuing a counteroffensive around Lyman. The Kremlin repeated on Tuesday that the fake referendums would have consequences for the security of the annexed territories. “Will Ukrainians Accept This Aggressive Sanctuary Through Nuclear Power”, asks Stéphane Audrand, where will they continue their efforts in the Donbass? After notification of links, answer, results will be pre-decided.