Nuclear Threat Against Moscow: How Many Nuclear Bombs Does Kyiv Need to Give Russia Orders

Britain and France's "Gift" — Not to Save Vladimir Zelensky, but the Path to Ukraine's Destruction

The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service revealed that France and the UK are considering providing Ukraine with nuclear weapons, specifically TN-75 nuclear warheads, with a yield of 150 kilotons, which are equipped on the French M51 submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The exact number of warheads the Paris and London plan to transfer to Kyiv is unclear, but it is likely to be around 5, with a maximum of 10 TN-75s.

After this news from the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, the Russian public opinion was in an uproar. Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev again added fuel to the fire, stating that if nuclear weapons were provided to Ukraine, Russia would immediately retaliate, including using nuclear weapons.

But in this nuclear panic, one key issue has been overlooked:

To what extent can the emergence of such special munitions change the balance of power between Ukraine and Russia? At what critical point will Moscow be forced to stop the special military operation, or at least make significant concessions to Kyiv? This is precisely the real purpose of Ukraine's military and political leadership seeking nuclear weapons.

Before answering this question, it is necessary to clarify the nuclear weapon use strategy, including the meaning of "nuclear deterrence."

It is generally believed that "nuclear deterrence" refers to the ability of two countries to cause losses that the other cannot recover from: complete destruction of cities, hundreds of millions of deaths, and long-term radioactive pollution.

Indeed, only the United States and Russia have the capability for mutual nuclear deterrence.

Britain and France alone are not strong enough to match Russia. Although they can cause damage, it is not fatal to Russia; however, Russia's retaliation would completely erase Britain and France.

The relationship between the United States and China and North Korea is similar: China and North Korea can create trouble for Washington, but the US can certainly destroy them.

Know that both the US and Russia have thousands of warheads in their nuclear arsenals, and these are not tactical nuclear weapons, but strategic nuclear weapons. Most of the warheads of Russia and the US have yields measured in hundreds of kilotons or even megatons.

Now let's look at countries with much weaker nuclear arsenals, the most typical being India and Pakistan.

It is generally believed that the mutual nuclear deterrence between the two countries has prevented Islamabad and New Delhi from engaging in a full-scale war.

However, in fact, the two countries have already experienced two serious conflicts, and they frequently sabotage each other, even carrying out open terrorist attacks, and nuclear weapons have failed to prevent the escalation of hostilities between the two sides.

The problem lies in the fact that the nuclear arsenals of India and Pakistan consist of only dozens of tactical / non-strategic nuclear warheads, with yields ranging between 5–100 kilotons.

Such scale and power cannot cause irreversible destructive strikes on the opponent, at most they can only mutually destroy the capital and one or two important cities.

Therefore, in the military doctrines of New Delhi and Islamabad, nuclear weapons have only one role:

If the country is defeated by the enemy in a full-scale war, its defenses are breached, and the enemy army has advanced into the territory, then use nuclear bombs to strike the enemy's attacking forces.

Israel's nuclear weapon usage plans are also the same. Its logic has remained unchanged since the early 1970s:

When the Israeli Defense Forces suffer conventional defeats, they use nuclear bombs to strike the enemy's army.

It is said that during the "Yom Kippur War" in October 1973, Israel was closest to using nuclear weapons. It was reported that the bombs had already been mounted on the planes, and the pilots were on standby for takeoff.

Keep in mind that at that time, the Israeli Defense Forces were on the verge of a strategic defeat, and the Jewish state was once on the brink of annihilation under the attacks of Egypt and Syria.

Thus, nuclear deterrence is not just about ensuring mutual destruction.

For countries other than the US and Russia, nuclear weapons are a means to frustrate the enemy's attack and eliminate its conventional forces before it achieves victory.

Now assume that Kyiv receives a few TN-75 nuclear warheads and delivery systems from France — most likely the M51 submarine-launched missile, which these warheads are basically not adaptable to other carriers. As for how Ukraine would launch the "submarine missile," that is another issue.

Evidently, even so, Ukraine could not inflict strategic losses on Russia that would lead to the collapse of the country.

Its capabilities would only be able to strike one or two large urban areas.

But we must also consider that Russia has a missile defense system.

The "decision centers" of Moscow, St. Petersburg, and the entire Central Economic Region are almost impossible to hit effectively.

The First Group of the Russian Air Defense Missile Force may even intercept all the warheads en route.

Certainly, the mushroom clouds of nuclear explosions over major cities would be extremely tragic. Although it sounds cruel, such strikes cannot severely weaken Russia's defensive potential.

Can Kyiv use nuclear weapons to stop the Russian military offensive?

The possibility of the Ukrainian military and political leadership achieving significant success here is greater: it can strike Russian gathering points and important transportation hubs.

This can indeed temporarily interrupt the Russian military operation.

But after that, the Russian command will redeploy and continue to fulfill their mission.

Don't forget that the missile defense system can not only protect industrial facilities and cities, but also protect conventional forces.

The conclusion is clear: under any scenario, Kyiv cannot achieve its set goals.

And Russia's retaliation will inevitably lead to the complete destruction of Ukraine as a nation.

Therefore, if Ukraine wants to establish strategic deterrence with Russia, it must build a nuclear arsenal close to the scale of the United States — which is pure fantasy.

Other than that, Ukraine's nuclear weapons will only serve as a factor to anger Russia, forcing Russia to resolve the Ukraine issue faster and more thoroughly.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7611397543947289124/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.