Nukes to Belarus how it's going to go down

Putin now is actively transferring Nuclear weapons to Belarus even sooner then the July dates . Putin says he will maintain control of the weapons but has left a hole open to blame Belarus by saying we did not authorize them to launch Belarus is responsible for this Nuclear attack .


Things are about to get heated How does NATO handle this ?

It's a total scam why would Russia give this insane Lukashenko nukes unless they want them to use them and be the fall guy .


So what are tactical nukes are they small enough to take out a city block or a whole city ? I know in the past they tried thing like nuke hand grenades and found out depending on the wind can back fire . Also lets say Belarus launches a few and the cloud hovers of Poland is that an attack on Poland ?

What is the smallest Nuke can it get down to Bullet size ?

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Things are about to get heated How does NATO handle this ?

If they pop off a nuke of any sorts, Russia is about to have a seriously bad day.

Because Putin knows NATO forces have him personally targeted, at all times, and don't need nukes, to ruin his day in a whole new way.

Which they would be forced to do if Russian forces decide to be so silly, via proxy, or otherwise.

What is the smallest Nuke can it get down to Bullet size ?

The smallest nuclear weapon in the world's known inventory is the B61-12.

Which is a thermonuclear bomb developed in the US.

With a selectable yield, meaning it can be adjusted to different levels, with the lowest estimated yield being around 0.3 kilotons (300 tons of TNT equivalent).

There are practical limits to how small a nuclear weapon can be while still being effective because reducing the size of the weapon involves reducing the amount of fissile material used, which in turn reduces the critical mass, which if cannot be achieved, the weapon would not function as a nuclear explosive.

Material science limits our ability to produce the likes of bullet nukes although they have been known to fit them in suitcases.

It's theoretically possible to create a very small nuclear bomb, but the practical and technological limitations make it difficult to develop effective weapons below a certain size, which is about the size of a basketball or thereabouts.

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher

Things are about to get heated How does NATO handle this ?

Stop supplying Ukraine will all the weapons, creating more death on both sides. Just allow the Donbass to join Russia, which the majority want and allow the people on both sides of Ukraine to live peacefully and allow the people of Donbass to live their life with their native customs without fear of being attacked because of what their heritage is. Its really quite simple.

originally posted by: MisguidedAngel

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher

Things are about to get heated How does NATO handle this ?

Stop supplying Ukraine will all the weapons, creating more death on both sides. Just allow the Donbass to join Russia, which the majority want and allow the people on both sides of Ukraine to live peacefully and allow the people of Donbass to live their life with their native customs without fear of being attacked because of what their heritage is. Its really quite simple.

Or, since Russia is the one that invaded Ukraine, just have Russia withdraw their troops.

It's really quite simple.

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

What makes you think the leader of balarus is ready to die and see his country destroyed though?

a reply to: andy06shake

A basketball sized nuke would be a pretty damn effective weapon imo.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I don't in any way disagree.

Apparently still very heavy all the same if somewhat man-portable.

en.wikipedia.org...



Thing is they can do the same to similar damage using conventional explosives in this day of age without resorting to the use nukes.

Smallest nuke I've heard of was the KGB suitcase nuke, or backpack nuke. 1 kiloton capability. I think both the US and Russia had designs as far back as the 60's. In the 90's, I remember a cold war scare that Russia had a nuke small enough to use in a subway system or localized environment like Times Square or Pier 39. Fun times

originally posted by: MisguidedAngel

No. First half of username checks out.

a reply to: andy06shake

Just have to bring back cannons. lol Or build giant mortar tubes.

a reply to: andy06shake

Thing is they can do the same to similar damage using conventional explosives in this day of age without resorting to the use nukes.

Yeah, but nukes are much more scary. Got to hit your enemies moral if your going to win.
Pluss you can nuke places that you never want to occupy, and because of the radiation the enemy can't regroup in that area.

imagine china setting off a basketball sized nuke in a bunch of american water reservoirs.

Simple follows simple and vice versa.

a reply to: schuyler

So what are tactical nukes are they small enough to take out a city block or a whole city ? I know in the past they tried thing like nuke hand grenades and found out depending on the wind can back fire . Also lets say Belarus launches a few and the cloud hovers of Poland is that an attack on Poland ?

What is the smallest Nuke can it get down to Bullet size ?

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Tactical nukes vary in yield from several tens of tons to several kilotons The smallest nuke deployed by US in the 1960's was the W54 with yield of 10 tons or 20 tons It was 11 in by 16 inch and weighed 50 lbs Following is website which gives damage inflicted by nuclear weapons Can choose location and yield - program outlines damage at various radius from detonation


nuclearsecrecy.com...

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: andy06shake

Just have to bring back cannons. lol Or build giant mortar tubes.

Put atomic Annie back in service lmao

originally posted by: MisguidedAngel

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher

Things are about to get heated How does NATO handle this ?

Stop supplying Ukraine will all the weapons, creating more death on both sides. Just allow the Donbass to join Russia, which the majority want and allow the people on both sides of Ukraine to live peacefully and allow the people of Donbass to live their life with their native customs without fear of being attacked because of what their heritage is. Its really quite simple.

Problem is, Russia wants the entire Ukraine. So just standing down and conceding land to them just prolongs the bigger issue.

Ukraine already stood down in 2014 and gave Russia Crimea without resistance. But then Russia stirred up a civil war in Eastern Ukraine then eventually invaded the country.

Now is the time to draw a line in the sand and put Russia in there place… or just cower in the corner like a little church mouse and allow them to take whatever they want… cause they got nukes!

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Or sneak in a rail gun and snipe putin next time he has a parade.

the conversation Russia is currently having with itself:

Sergey Karaganov: By using its nuclear weapons, Russia could save humanity from a global catastrophe

originally posted by: tnxoxodka
the conversation Russia is currently having with itself:

Sergey Karaganov: By using its nuclear weapons, Russia could save humanity from a global catastrophe

All due respect to Pr. Karaganov (author of the article), but his conclusion as put forth in the article is based on a very unrealistic, and frankly intellectually embarrassing, misreading of the West (read: the US).


Contrary to the professor's assertion, were Russia to "nuke" Ukraine, the result would not be a withdrawal of Western support for Ukraine out of some existential fear of escalation. Far from it.

The West/US is under no formal obligation to "retaliate-in-kind" against Russia for a nuclear attack on Ukraine. So there would be no fear among Western powers that Armageddon was assured without Ukraine's immediate surrender. And such an attack would only serve to steel the Ukrainian resolve ten Fold.

That said, were Russia be so foolish as to use even a single tactical nuclear weapon within the Ukrainian borders, there would be an immediate "gloves off" effort to provide Ukraine with as much of the best and longest range weaponry that could be gathered.

That would not (probably) include nuclear weapons....at least not from US or European sources.

There are other "sources" that, (perhaps with a bit of convincing) might see Russia's unilateral action as potentially "existential" threat sufficient to supply a device, or two, of their own. Quietly.


Then too, there would be no way such an atrocity could be kept from a large segment of the Russian people, even with extreme State censorship. Given the rivalries and rifts currently within the Russian leadership (Putin is reported to have just sided with the head of the military to require the Wagner group's compliance, a requirement the head of Wagner, Prigozhin has said he would defy), nuclearization of the SMO would never pass the Duma, and would likely force the collapse of the government if Putin were to "go rogue".

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Why would China want to destroy one of its major markets and consumer bases by setting off nukes in its water reservoirs?

As to the radiation produced by a nuclear warhead, that's down to the size, type, materials used in its construction, and also the selection of the burst altitude and location.

Nukes are not just scary scraedtosleep, they are overkill by my guess.

Some of Russia's tactical nukes have three times the power of the ones dropped on Japan.