It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Would Syria allow Russia to use tactical nuclear weapons on their soil?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 04:23 AM
a reply to: seagull

I agree that if nukes get involved it will escalate. Although the Russian doctrine envisions "deescalation" use of tactical nukes. In case of Turkey being NATO country it will get very complicated. A number of European powers will be afraid to death they are the next ones, regardless of whether USA or Russia will win.

When the threshold of using the megatons will be reached, we don't know, but it would be rather soon. May be not in days but in weeks after the first tactical nuke goes off. It is illusion that Russia will get involved in regional conflict and will allow to be defeated, because NATO threatens its existence. Rather Russia will bunker inside half of population and then will put ultimatums. You can hardly defeat a country that has decided to take nuclear strikes as part of its winning strategy, that has built enough shelters, and has already exploded in the atmosphere on its own territory Tsar bomb plus hundreds of other "smaller" weapons. Russia is ready for big the nuclear war much more than USA is, let alone Europe.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 04:46 AM
there are no targets left in syria as it is, nuking a rebel held city is overkill.
if the chechens attempted some paris like attack, then grozny might get toasty.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 04:57 AM

originally posted by: concernedcitizen519
With Putin raising eyebrows this week by mentioning the possibility of using nuclear weapons against terrorists, although an unlikely scenario, do you think Syria would allow it in the Country?

Assad is a weasel, but he's not a suicidal weasel. So - no. In fact hell no.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:14 AM
a reply to: 2012newstart

this scenario although logical, sidelines the fact that China, Russia and a couple of other major powers are now allies, although it might be a convenient marriage and might not survive long after a common future victory.

Well first thing is China would not back Russia in a they still have claims on some Russian land bordering China so that gives them the chance to take it back from Russia at the right time.

Secondly Russia does not have any major powers that would back them in a war...especially if they use a nuke no matter the size.

If your talking about BRICS nations...

Brazil is not a major power and can't help.

South Africa is not a major power and can't help.

That leaves India and China...neither of those would back Russia militarily in Syria. China has been calling for a diplomatic solution to the problems in Syria not a military one.

India feels the same way...

“There’s no military solution to the Syrian crisis. The long-term solution should be political,” Mr. Wadhwa said. He said “no” to a question whether this would mean India is opposed to Russia’s military intervention in Syria. “The Indian position is that Russian military involvement in Syria is to halt the advances of the Islamic State. But what came up for discussion today is the long-term solution to the Syrian crisis. That’s the Geneva talks”

SO if Russia ramps up and uses a tactical nuke they would have no major powers that would back that decision.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:00 AM
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

It would be interesting to see hypothetical situation where China sneak attacks Russia in the back, and in turn gets 100s of nukes on its biggest cities. I don't think the Chinese are such fools.

Rather the Europeans should double think where do they stand in term of Russo-Turk war. Because they are too close to be helped by anyone if the Bear decides to turn on them - either conventionally or nuclear.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in