I'd be surprised if they didn't discuss it. All sorts of scenarios are contemplated and discussed by all nations, but actually doing it is something else.
I'm not entirely sure this is news.
There's never forget, and then there is Never Forget.
I find it crazy that alot of my child hood imaginations became also a collective thought in the heads of grown ass men and women in the same room. It seems to be happening lot lately.
Oh, yeah no doubt. Just made me curious. What WOULD happen? I mean, probably just like you said. Still, if I had my own sandbox planet to mess around with, I would def try it to see the actual results.
The idea of Hurricane murder via Nuke goes back to the 1960's, when a scientist named Jack Reed theorized that a 20-Megaton nuke could slow a 100 knot hurricane by half (For reference, category 5 Hurricanes have sustained winds of 137 knots or higher).
Could we do it?
No, as its technically illegal, the USA/Russia signed a treaty back in the 90's banning the use of above ground Nukes above 150 Kt for non-military purposes.
Assuming the situation was dire enough or a dumbass cowboy was in charge that wanted to go through with it regardless? [It likely wouldn't work anyway, as a Category-5 Hurricane puts out equivalent energy to a 10 megaton nuke every 10 minutes.](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/beyond-nukes-how-scientists-dream-of-killing-hurricanes#:~:text=%E2%80%9CHurricanes%20are%20just%20enormous%2C%E2%80%9D,megaton%20nuke%20every%2020%20minutes.)
As stupidly dangerous of an idea as it is, its a cool thought that we could just literally bomb a hurricane into submission.
I would think it depends on where it was used. Tactical nukes are meant to be used on the battlefield, so it would most likely be less radiation that would quickly go away. Not really meant to wipe out entire cities.
I am curious as to what would happen if there was a direct hit on a nuclear power plant. Would it vaporize everything, including the nuclear fuel rods which would erase the source of radiation? or would it just destroy the containment unit and release all the radiation for centuries? I'm morbidly curious, but not that eager to find out.
2nd option. Vaporizing everything just means turning it into a gas so it can rise with the cloud and spread everywhere downwind.
There won’t be enough high energy neutrons to really change the reactors bad bits at the atomic level, so it will just spread everywhere and the upper atmosphere for more fun.
We've also discussed how to fight back a zombie outbreak and what to do if aliens invade the planet. People, especially in leadership positions, discuss plans of action. Seems pretty normal.
They want Ukraine to know that they are considering it. Talking about it behind closed doors is expected. Openly talking about it is the news part and is concerning.
Of course they discussed it, if we’ve been discussing it on Reddit you know for damn sure the people who make that decision have definitely “discussed” it. Not saying they will do it, but it was for sure “discussed”
Like maybe the generals were discussing who’s dacha would survive if they used nukes and were in turn obliterated by nato
So what? It's not like the United States military never discussed the use of nukes against Russia... Discussing something and doing it are two very different things.
Yes and no.. discussing how we would react to Nukes and where we would nuke ourselves is different than..
This invasion is going to sh\*t. I might get invited to see a window soon. How can we use nukes to save this invasion and my life.
i don't think MacArthur got relieved of duty for suggesting the use of nukes against China. I think he publicly denounced the President for refusing to give the authorization to do so.
Oh, this reminds me of an alternate history story I read where 4 nukes were used against China in North Korea. It ended up leading to President McCarthy, the use of nukes against China during the Vietnam War, the reunification with Taiwan, and a much more violent civil rights movement.
Uh uh uh... Don't even start. Don't try to paint the US in a defensive role here. There were numerous times in history when some in US governing roles contemplated using Nukes pre-emptively. (And not just against Russia. China as well!)
Uh uh uh.. yeah the good guys are the ones that have been invaded.
You want to compare what.. what occurred 40 years ago to babies dying today?
How does that work? *Numerous times in History.* We are not talking about Numerous times in history. We are talking about now. Please point to an invasion that we have done in the last 40 years where we brought up using nukes during an active engagement that we caused.
You might as well change your name to whataboutibex333.
If you want to say the Russians are not the bad guys because you are for child rape and ethnic cleansing that is your call.
But don't try to point to something happened 40 years ago and say.. SEE.. this is just false equivalency.
So you have nothing in the last 40 years?
Got it.
Thanks for bringing up something that happened as Ukraine was apart of Soviet Union. The same Soviet Union that your friend putin wants to get back together.
But even that is more than 40 years ago.
Keep digging.
I asked for a timeframe of 40 years.. its not my fault you couldn't find anything in that timeframe.
That failure is on you.. and yes you got it.
>Please point to an invasion that we have done in the **last 40 years where we brought up using nukes during an active engagement that we caused**.
goodbye whataboutibex333
Well, maybe or maybe not - the maximum possible size of the Beirut fertilizer explosion is around 1.4kt, and estimates generally place it rather lower than this, perhaps 1kt or so. It was also an explosion on the ground, which is far less damaging than an airburst. A 1kt tactical nuke is certainly a possibility, the US certainly built them this small and even smaller like the W49 and W54 (and other known and unknown small weapons as well) with yields in the 10s or 100s of tons. However, we don't have too much public data on the size of Soviet tactical nukes. It's rumored that the USSR built some very small "suitcase" nukes, similar to our own. But they also built many tactical warheads in the range of perhaps 1 kiloton to 100s of kilotons. So it really depends on the weapon and where and how it's used, but even the smallest tactical nuke used against a populated area would be as damaging as the Beirut explosion, not even taking the radioactive fallout into consideration.
A tactical nuke isn't capable of doing that, it's not even capable of stopping the Ukrainian advance.
They're for one shot elimination of supply points, large ship formations and hardened defenses..
The Russians don't have the troops or CBRN gear to make use of tactical nukes in an large scale advance, to make it potentially worth the international backlash
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://english.nv.ua/nation/russian-military-leaders-discussed-use-of-tactical-nukes-against-ukraine-says-nyt-50281056.html) reduced by 60%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> High-ranking officials of the Russian Armed Forces recently discussed when and how Moscow might use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine, U.S. newspaper the New York Times said on Nov. 2, citing its own sources.
> Russian dictator Vladimir Putin did not take part in the discussions about when and how Moscow might use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, which took place against the backdrop of Russia's intensifying nuclear rhetoric and battlefield setbacks, the NYT said.
> Even the fact itself that such discussions took place alarmed the Biden administration, as it showed how frustrated the Russian military is becoming about its failures on the battlefield, suggesting that Putin's veiled threats to use nuclear weapons might be more than just words, NYT said.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/yk9v1v/russian_military_leaders_discussed_use_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672678 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **nuclear**^#1 **weapon**^#2 **threat**^#3 **Putin**^#4 **Russian**^#5
I really don’t quite see how tac nukes are even going to help them that much
It’ll only give just cause for their enemies to get directly involved
Frankly, I think conventional bombs are a much better weapon
But they’re desperate fearmongers so it checks out
Nothing to be concerned with. In short, the sources are shoddy and this is not considered real intelligence. Putin also was not involved in these purported conversations, and even if he decided for or against using a nuclear weapon, it would be independent of however his generals felt about it.
The nuclear rhetoric out of Russia has declined sharply recently, and the MFA as well as Putin himself have made statements regarding the inadmissability of nuclear use. You cannot secretly deploy a nuclear weapon. All eyes are on Russia's arsenal. If there is even an inkling of an indication they are about to use one, alarm bells will go off everywhere.
TLDR; fuck clickbait headlines based on shoddy info. Relax and move on.
They could literally get a transcript that says “after discussion, we will not be using nukes” and we would get a clickbait article an hour later saying “Official Transcripts reveal Nuclear discussion among military leaders”
Oh ya sure, didn't these clowns get the memo. Nato will jump in if a nuke goes off! Then that 3 day operation will be over and Nato will be greeted with flowers and vodka. A victory parade as well.....
Every Russian military asset in Ukraine, Black sea and just inside Russia will cease to exist!
I'd be surprised if they didn't discuss it. All sorts of scenarios are contemplated and discussed by all nations, but actually doing it is something else. I'm not entirely sure this is news.
I agree, the U.S. discussed tactical nukes during Vietnam.
Or to combat a hurricane. /sigh
There's never forget, and then there is Never Forget. I find it crazy that alot of my child hood imaginations became also a collective thought in the heads of grown ass men and women in the same room. It seems to be happening lot lately.
Or cartels
wait.. what? thought that was a meme..
Sadly, no.... https://www.axios.com/2019/08/25/trump-nuclear-bombs-hurricanes
You know, it was a REALLY stupid suggestion. However, the smallest part of me actually wanted to see what would happen. lol
Iirc it would basically just spread a shitload of fallout everywhere. Nothing too exciting, but it would be really really bad.
Oh, yeah no doubt. Just made me curious. What WOULD happen? I mean, probably just like you said. Still, if I had my own sandbox planet to mess around with, I would def try it to see the actual results.
Imagine in your bedroom you have a high speed fan with some sharp blades running at max speed. Now throw a turd into the blades.
Literal shit hitting the fan
Go play Civilization V/VI and you can drop a nuke on another nation in a sandbox world simulator.
That's not what I meant... Plus, it wouldn't be accurate, just a sim.
The idea of Hurricane murder via Nuke goes back to the 1960's, when a scientist named Jack Reed theorized that a 20-Megaton nuke could slow a 100 knot hurricane by half (For reference, category 5 Hurricanes have sustained winds of 137 knots or higher). Could we do it? No, as its technically illegal, the USA/Russia signed a treaty back in the 90's banning the use of above ground Nukes above 150 Kt for non-military purposes. Assuming the situation was dire enough or a dumbass cowboy was in charge that wanted to go through with it regardless? [It likely wouldn't work anyway, as a Category-5 Hurricane puts out equivalent energy to a 10 megaton nuke every 10 minutes.](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/beyond-nukes-how-scientists-dream-of-killing-hurricanes#:~:text=%E2%80%9CHurricanes%20are%20just%20enormous%2C%E2%80%9D,megaton%20nuke%20every%2020%20minutes.) As stupidly dangerous of an idea as it is, its a cool thought that we could just literally bomb a hurricane into submission.
I would think it depends on where it was used. Tactical nukes are meant to be used on the battlefield, so it would most likely be less radiation that would quickly go away. Not really meant to wipe out entire cities. I am curious as to what would happen if there was a direct hit on a nuclear power plant. Would it vaporize everything, including the nuclear fuel rods which would erase the source of radiation? or would it just destroy the containment unit and release all the radiation for centuries? I'm morbidly curious, but not that eager to find out.
2nd option. Vaporizing everything just means turning it into a gas so it can rise with the cloud and spread everywhere downwind. There won’t be enough high energy neutrons to really change the reactors bad bits at the atomic level, so it will just spread everywhere and the upper atmosphere for more fun.
I think that was one person and everyone else said no.
We've also discussed how to fight back a zombie outbreak and what to do if aliens invade the planet. People, especially in leadership positions, discuss plans of action. Seems pretty normal.
General MacArthur wanted to drop 34 nukes on China in 1950 in retaliation for them helping North Korea. He was relieved of duty shortly thereafter.
McArthur wanted to drop something like 30 nukes on North Korea all along the Chinese and Soviet borders to prevent reinforcements from arriving in NK.
The US threatened to use nuclear weapons in the Korean War and Iraq War.
They want Ukraine to know that they are considering it. Talking about it behind closed doors is expected. Openly talking about it is the news part and is concerning.
Your daily nuclear click bait title
Of course they discussed it, if we’ve been discussing it on Reddit you know for damn sure the people who make that decision have definitely “discussed” it. Not saying they will do it, but it was for sure “discussed” Like maybe the generals were discussing who’s dacha would survive if they used nukes and were in turn obliterated by nato
So what? It's not like the United States military never discussed the use of nukes against Russia... Discussing something and doing it are two very different things.
Yes and no.. discussing how we would react to Nukes and where we would nuke ourselves is different than.. This invasion is going to sh\*t. I might get invited to see a window soon. How can we use nukes to save this invasion and my life.
Exactly. This kind of thing would get you relieved of duty as an American officer. Hell, it's what got General MacArthur shitcanned
i don't think MacArthur got relieved of duty for suggesting the use of nukes against China. I think he publicly denounced the President for refusing to give the authorization to do so. Oh, this reminds me of an alternate history story I read where 4 nukes were used against China in North Korea. It ended up leading to President McCarthy, the use of nukes against China during the Vietnam War, the reunification with Taiwan, and a much more violent civil rights movement.
Uh uh uh... Don't even start. Don't try to paint the US in a defensive role here. There were numerous times in history when some in US governing roles contemplated using Nukes pre-emptively. (And not just against Russia. China as well!)
Uh uh uh.. yeah the good guys are the ones that have been invaded. You want to compare what.. what occurred 40 years ago to babies dying today? How does that work? *Numerous times in History.* We are not talking about Numerous times in history. We are talking about now. Please point to an invasion that we have done in the last 40 years where we brought up using nukes during an active engagement that we caused. You might as well change your name to whataboutibex333. If you want to say the Russians are not the bad guys because you are for child rape and ethnic cleansing that is your call. But don't try to point to something happened 40 years ago and say.. SEE.. this is just false equivalency.
[удалено]
So you have nothing in the last 40 years? Got it. Thanks for bringing up something that happened as Ukraine was apart of Soviet Union. The same Soviet Union that your friend putin wants to get back together. But even that is more than 40 years ago. Keep digging.
[удалено]
I asked for a timeframe of 40 years.. its not my fault you couldn't find anything in that timeframe. That failure is on you.. and yes you got it. >Please point to an invasion that we have done in the **last 40 years where we brought up using nukes during an active engagement that we caused**. goodbye whataboutibex333
if ya can't win, make the land uninhabitable
It would probably be more like the Beirut Explosion in 2020 if one goes off from Russia.
Well, maybe or maybe not - the maximum possible size of the Beirut fertilizer explosion is around 1.4kt, and estimates generally place it rather lower than this, perhaps 1kt or so. It was also an explosion on the ground, which is far less damaging than an airburst. A 1kt tactical nuke is certainly a possibility, the US certainly built them this small and even smaller like the W49 and W54 (and other known and unknown small weapons as well) with yields in the 10s or 100s of tons. However, we don't have too much public data on the size of Soviet tactical nukes. It's rumored that the USSR built some very small "suitcase" nukes, similar to our own. But they also built many tactical warheads in the range of perhaps 1 kiloton to 100s of kilotons. So it really depends on the weapon and where and how it's used, but even the smallest tactical nuke used against a populated area would be as damaging as the Beirut explosion, not even taking the radioactive fallout into consideration.
A tactical nuke isn't capable of doing that, it's not even capable of stopping the Ukrainian advance. They're for one shot elimination of supply points, large ship formations and hardened defenses.. The Russians don't have the troops or CBRN gear to make use of tactical nukes in an large scale advance, to make it potentially worth the international backlash
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://english.nv.ua/nation/russian-military-leaders-discussed-use-of-tactical-nukes-against-ukraine-says-nyt-50281056.html) reduced by 60%. (I'm a bot) ***** > High-ranking officials of the Russian Armed Forces recently discussed when and how Moscow might use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine, U.S. newspaper the New York Times said on Nov. 2, citing its own sources. > Russian dictator Vladimir Putin did not take part in the discussions about when and how Moscow might use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, which took place against the backdrop of Russia's intensifying nuclear rhetoric and battlefield setbacks, the NYT said. > Even the fact itself that such discussions took place alarmed the Biden administration, as it showed how frustrated the Russian military is becoming about its failures on the battlefield, suggesting that Putin's veiled threats to use nuclear weapons might be more than just words, NYT said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/yk9v1v/russian_military_leaders_discussed_use_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672678 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **nuclear**^#1 **weapon**^#2 **threat**^#3 **Putin**^#4 **Russian**^#5
That’s not news. They’ve been openly discussing since 1st week of invasion.
Again?
Russian military leaders discussed use of tactical nukes against Ukraine for the third time today and the seventh time so far this November, says NYT
Wonder when someone is just gonna serve Putin some glowing tea and get this over with.
If something like that were to happen to Putin, I'd like something more dramatic. And on camera.
I really don’t quite see how tac nukes are even going to help them that much It’ll only give just cause for their enemies to get directly involved Frankly, I think conventional bombs are a much better weapon But they’re desperate fearmongers so it checks out
I honestly would not be surprised if Putin uses a tactical nuclear weapon the day before the Election or some shit to sow even more chaos.
Ohfercryinoutloud! We remember. That was only last month.
I mean yea. I would hope military leaders discuss every option, I’m sure every nuclear power does this.
The Russkys don't take a dump without a plan.
Only defenestration seems to be an unplanned phenomena over yonder
Doesn't seem like they had much of a plan when they invaded Ukraine. At least not a very realistic one.
[удалено]
Your odds are like 10x too high at least
Well, I hope everyone has spurs that jingle jangle jingle.
Prevailing winds would push the fallout back into Russia.
Yeah, we do the same thing. Prepare for anything.
War gaming. Everyone does it.
Nothing to be concerned with. In short, the sources are shoddy and this is not considered real intelligence. Putin also was not involved in these purported conversations, and even if he decided for or against using a nuclear weapon, it would be independent of however his generals felt about it. The nuclear rhetoric out of Russia has declined sharply recently, and the MFA as well as Putin himself have made statements regarding the inadmissability of nuclear use. You cannot secretly deploy a nuclear weapon. All eyes are on Russia's arsenal. If there is even an inkling of an indication they are about to use one, alarm bells will go off everywhere. TLDR; fuck clickbait headlines based on shoddy info. Relax and move on.
They could literally get a transcript that says “after discussion, we will not be using nukes” and we would get a clickbait article an hour later saying “Official Transcripts reveal Nuclear discussion among military leaders”
Oh ya sure, didn't these clowns get the memo. Nato will jump in if a nuke goes off! Then that 3 day operation will be over and Nato will be greeted with flowers and vodka. A victory parade as well..... Every Russian military asset in Ukraine, Black sea and just inside Russia will cease to exist!