Russia Integrating Tactical Nukes into Regular Military Units

by Jack

nuclearbombPutin says they reserve the right to use tactical nuclear warheads if it comes down to Assad’s survival (and it is necessary to defeat ISIS). This is the first time I have heard any country [specifically] state they will use nuclear weapons against a current enemy if conditions make it necessary.

That’s about as scary as it gets, because this is not a bluff and we’ve always thought the Middle East would be the first place for a nuclear exchange.

Russia has air-burst nukes that kill all living things in and around the huge blast zone, but it leaves the military equipment completely suitable for reuse. This is how neutron fission works. It kills deep into protected bunkers, armored tanks, caves, etc., then the radiation quickly dies out. Its almost back to normal in a few weeks.

Early in February it was alleged that Russia detonated a small neutron bomb just inside Ukrainian territory in support of the so-called separatist rebels which are really Russian soldiers. “Three videos just uploaded show the small nuclear blast below. Nothing more is known at this time, including who launched the weapon or against which target.

The materials appear to have originated from the war-torn region of Ukraine, where separatists are attempting to return control of the former Soviet nation to Russia. The attack comes after Britain’s defense minister voiced concerns Russia may have “lowered the threshold” for using nuclear weapons. In their criticisms, Britain warned Russia’s nuclear strategy was being integrated with conventional forces in “a rather threatening way.”

Russia further upped the ante when they used submarine launched cruise missiles. It appears their technology is pretty good too. Seems Isis’ latest financial officer has suddenly left to meet Allah, courtesy of a cruise missile. Hitting ISIS in the pocket book really hurts them and Russia knows it.

Tactical nuke v. strategic nuke: strategic nuclear weapon refers to a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on targets as part of a strategic plan, such as nuclear missile bases, military command centers, factories, and heavily populated areas such as cities and towns.

They are in contrast to tactical nuclear weapons, which are designed for use in battle, as part of an attack with conventional weapon forces. Strategic nuclear weapons generally have significantly larger yields, starting from 100 kilotons up to destructive yields in the low megaton range

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Russia Integrating Tactical Nukes into Regular Military Units

  1. RHT447 says:

    “That, detective Spooner, is the right question.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC7Fz0d9H8M

  2. Tina says:

    Our President has sure shown Putin how much “flexibility” he has in his second term. Nicely done O’Bummer.

    Is it not ironic that the anti-nuke crowd from the sixties now have a leader that has endangered the world more than at any other time since WWII?

    OIl?

    Dewey is still deluded. He believes Bush/Cheney went to war for oil in Iraq. In fact the idea was to liberate Iraq and assist the Iraqi’s in setting up a democratic form of government…which they did. Victor Davis Hansen spells out what did happen in June of 2009 to Iraq’s oil:

    …the representative Iraqi government held its first oil auction — featuring transparent negotiations in which no American oil company was awarded an oil concession.

    Instead, Chinese, Russian, British, French and other national oil consortia were given the awards. These were legitimate contracts, too — not the sweetheart deals Saddam Hussein used to make with other governments in exchange for international political cover.

    It’s a good article worth reading to remind oneself of the stability that was present when Obama took the Presidency. ..and the mess he’s made since.

    Putin’s threat, although later qualified, shows the world that he is the top dog in the world right now. America has been de-clawed by it’s hapless appeasing leadership in the last seven years and he’s grabbing the leadership position, filling the void.

    Sadly lefties in America don;t seem to mind, even welcome it. They are so confused about the white and black hats.

  3. Tina says:

    Our President has sure shown Putin how much “flexibility” he has in his second term. Nicely done O’Bummer.

    Is it not ironic that the anti-nuke crowd from the sixties now have a leader that has endangered the world more than at any other time since WWII?

    OIl?

    Dewey is still deluded. He believes Bush/Cheney went to war for oil in Iraq. In fact the idea was to liberate Iraq and assist the Iraqi’s in setting up a democratic form of government…which they did. Victor Davis Hansen spells out what did happen in June of 2009 to Iraq’s oil:

    …the representative Iraqi government held its first oil auction — featuring transparent negotiations in which no American oil company was awarded an oil concession.

    Instead, Chinese, Russian, British, French and other national oil consortia were given the awards. These were legitimate contracts, too — not the sweetheart deals Saddam Hussein used to make with other governments in exchange for international political cover.

    It’s a good article worth reading to remind oneself of the stability that was present when Obama took the Presidency. ..and the mess he’s made since.

    Putin’s threat, although later qualified, shows the world that he is the top dog in the world right now. America has been de-clawed by it’s hapless appeasing leadership in the last seven years and he’s grabbing the leadership position, filling the void.

    Sadly lefties in America don’t seem to mind, even welcome it. They are so confused about the white and black hats.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.