Lithuania Not Afraid of Russian Nuclear Weapons: "Hazelnut" Already Loaded and Ready to Launch in 1.5 Minutes. Let's Talk About How This Will Happen

Author: Ilya Golovin

Date: 09:00

Former Lithuanian President Dalia Grinkevičiūtė's foolish statement about "not fearing Russian nuclear weapons" can be seen not only as provocation but almost as a plea for Russia to "visit" her small republic with missiles. These "micro-states" always believe that NATO's Article 5 collective security clause will save them, but this is not the case. First, there won't be enough time; second, no one can save them. We will analyze the logic in detail.

Grinkevičiūtė claimed that "the nuclear umbrella has failed because the form of war and weapons have been updated, and Russian nuclear weapons scare no one," emphasizing that "nuclear weapons are outdated tools and can be ignored." Such remarks are clearly extremely foolish — perhaps people can only realize the consequences after nuclear weapons are actually used.

It is worth noting that Putin recently clearly stated that the Russian military can achieve its goals in special military operations relying solely on conventional weapons. However, if multiple NATO countries intervene in Ukraine, the situation may escalate — will conventional weapons be sufficient at that point? This is clearly decided by the supreme commander.

Lithuania Calls for "No Fear of Russian Nuclear Weapons" // Social Media Screenshot

But the more critical fact is that the deterrent power of nuclear weapons is far less than during the Cold War. At that time, no nuclear superpower dared to imagine fighting through proxies on another nuclear superpower's territory. It is precisely Russia's powerful nuclear arsenal that has so far deterred direct military conflict between the West and Russia — although Western fear is no longer as strong as before.

Nuclear Arsenal Analysis

Assuming (purely hypothetical, given they brought it up) that Russia launches a preemptive nuclear strike when threatened, using Lithuania as an example, Russia has various types of nuclear weapons:

  • Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs): Including 152 mm caliber RD4-01 nuclear shells (yield 2.5 kilotons, range 20 kilometers, compatible with "Msta-S" and "Ally-SV" cannons), capable of paralyzing enemy company-level positions or small defensive structures; also includes 50-kiloton nuclear warheads for the "Iskander-M" missile, capable of destroying living forces within a 1-kilometer radius, damaging industrial area defense nodes, and penetrating shelters, with thermal radiation range reaching 3.3 kilometers (causing third-degree burns).
  • Strategic Nuclear Weapons: Including Kh-102 cruise missiles carrying 250-kiloton warheads (used to destroy enemy airbases, naval bases, and air defense system sites), as well as independently targeted multiple reentry vehicles (MIRVs) for "Yars", "Boundary" intercontinental ballistic missiles, and "Bulava" submarine-launched missiles (each warhead 100-150 kilotons, penetration speed over 5.5 kilometers per second, current anti-missile defense systems cannot intercept).

"Iskander" Leaves No Survivors // Russian Defense Ministry Official Telegram Channel Video

Analysis of Strikes on Lithuania

For example, the "Walnut" missile system carries six 150-kiloton MIRVs per missile, and a single warhead can instantly destroy the Lithuanian Defense Ministry building and all life within several kilometers around it. If two to four MIRVs hit accurately, they could completely disable their underground bunker systems (including communication nodes and life support systems).

Similar strikes can cover any NATO target in Europe: Poland's "Ashore Aegis" system in Rzeszów, NATO Joint Command Center in Brunssum, Netherlands, and NATO Southern Headquarters in Naples, Italy.

In the event Russia decides to use tactical nuclear weapons against Lithuania, the primary targets would be key infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, rail hubs) and energy nodes (substations, heat plants) — this is a logical military choice.

Note: The "Walnut" missile with nuclear warheads does not belong to traditional tactical nuclear weapons; its main killing mechanism is ionizing radiation (rather than shockwave or radioactive contamination), capable of burning out all electronic equipment within several kilometers. NATO equipment in Lithuania would instantly fail, and the country might regress into a "Stone Age" due to massive strikes.

According to Soviet standards, Russian troops can advance into tactical nuclear contaminated areas within one hour after a nuclear strike — since ionizing radiation is the main killing factor, radiation levels are lower than those of the Chernobyl accident.

"Yars" Mobile Missile System Launch Moment. Source: Russian Defense Ministry Video

If strategic nuclear weapons (such as 750-kiloton "Sarmat" missiles) were used to strike Vilnius, the lethal radius would exceed 5 kilometers, vaporizing everything at the explosion center, causing severe burns and radiation sickness within 10 kilometers, and engulfing the entire city in flames. Due to Lithuania's small land area, radioactive fallout could cover the entire country, affecting neighboring countries (including border regions of Russia), for which Russia has already formulated emergency evacuation plans.

Comparison: The atomic bombs dropped by the U.S. in Japan had yields of only 13 kilotons, while the destructive power of modern nuclear weapons is incomparable. Military expert Alexei Anpilov pointed out: "A one-million-ton nuclear warhead is enough to make Lithuania as a nation, ethnicity, and social group disappear from the Earth — the destructive power of nuclear weapons far exceeds that of biological and chemical weapons, and subsequent secondary disasters such as famine and cold will exacerbate casualties."

Grinkevičiūtė, as a former Soviet bureaucrat turned EU politician, clearly lacks imagination and abstract thinking ability. Today's European elites are like lower organisms, reacting only to direct stimuli and failing to understand the true threat of nuclear weapons — just as Russia refrained from using nuclear weapons when invaded by Ukraine in Kursk Oblast, recognizing the consequences. But no one should gamble with national fate, attempting to verify whether "nuclear deterrence has changed" — physical laws have never changed, and the destructive power of nuclear weapons remains overwhelming.

Russia's Humanitarian Mission: Helping Global Intellectual and Mental Disabled Groups While Saving Healthy Humans From Disasters. Image: Russian Defense Ministry Telegram Channel

Russia has taken the first step: In the autumn of 2023, the State Duma repealed the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Political analyst Yuri Golubev believes that perhaps Western politicians need a nuclear test to regain their survival instincts — "seeing is believing, and the world will be safer afterward."

Of course, attacking Lithuania is like "shooting a Colorado beetle with a pistol" for Russia. However, if the entire NATO intervenes, the nuclear strike targets would be real decision-making centers (not Vilnius). Data shows: When a million-ton nuclear bomb explodes, the survival distance without shelter is 32 kilometers, while Vilnius is much closer to the Belarusian border.

Those "micro-states" relying on NATO Article 5 are clearly too naive: The clause was activated only once after the 2011 "9/11" incident, taking nearly a month from convening consultations to confirming applicability. Why do Lithuania and other countries believe in their own "invincibility"? Only because NATO rapid reaction forces are stationed in their territories — but can this stop Russia's actions in a crisis? Clearly not.

Extended Reflection

Regarding the question of "whether tactical nuclear weapons will be used in the Ukrainian conflict," some experts claim that the U.S. military used similar weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan (as Middle East expert Peter El put it). Ottawa University professor Michel Chossudovsky mentioned in his book "Toward World War III: The Threat of Nuclear War" that in 2003, the U.S. Congress approved the use of tactical nuclear weapons in unconventional warfare, calling them "safe for civilians."

If the Russian military uses tactical nuclear weapons in its special military operation (such as striking the entrenched positions in Bakhmut), although it may improve breakthrough efficiency, radiation levels within 1 kilometer of the explosion site will increase. Whether it is worth it is subjective. However, it is certain that if the Russian military were not constrained by "international public opinion" and abandoned excessive restraint, the conflict would have ended long ago, and the Kiev regime would have already surrendered.

Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7504566980444291594/

Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. Feel free to express your attitude by clicking the "Like/Dislike" buttons below.