A Tactical Nuke Would Do Nothing to Change the Ukrainian Battlefield
There is no military reason to use a tactical nuke at this phase in Putin’s war.
But first, what exactly is a “tactical” nuke?
Strangely, there is no real definition of “tactical nuclear weapon.” Many arms control wonks simply use the term “tactical” or “battlefield” nuke to distinguish them from their strategic big brothers — the city-annihilating strategic nukes.
Typically, tactical nukes are between one and fifty kilotons, (although a few may venture into the hundreds of kilotons), and some weapons give its users the ability to ‘dial-in’ the destructive yield… A variable yield function, if you will.
What a time to be alive!
But here’s the thing — nukes, either tactical or strategic, don’t take territories. They don’t hold territories either. They simply make the area where they exploded impassible for a few hundred years.
Putin might be able to freeze the current conflict by nuking the front lines, but that would take hundreds of tactical nukes to accomplish.
Even though they’re smaller, tactical nuclear weapons are best for blowing up big things — carrier strike groups, tank columns, massed infantry, etc.
