About three weeks into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it’s secure to say issues aren’t going Russia’s method – and it has but to realize targets that had been deliberate to be accomplished within the first few days.
The longer Russia’s advance is slowed down, the higher the prospect it’ll contemplate taking drastic motion, which can doubtlessly embody utilizing weapons of mass destruction.
As unbelievable as that is, it’s not inconceivable. Underneath what circumstances may weapons of mass destruction be used?
Learn extra:
3 methods Russia has proven navy ‘incompetence’ throughout its invasion of Ukraine
Chemical weapons
The weapon of mass destruction most certainly for use is a chemical weapon. Russia as soon as possessed the world’s largest stockpile of chemical weapons, starting from nerve brokers reminiscent of Sarin and VX, to mustard fuel and the poisonous fuel phosgene.
Though Russia claims to have destroyed its arsenal by 2017, the usage of the nerve agent Novichok throughout assassination makes an attempt in 2018 and 2020 demonstrates it continues to own chemical weapons, though the portions and kinds (except for Novichok) are unknown.
In response to reviews, US and allied officers suspect Russia could also be planning (or contemplating) a “false flag” operation involving the usage of chemical weapons, to determine a belated justification for the invasion of Ukraine, regardless of the apparent logical inconsistency.
On this context, Russia may launch a chemical weapon assault and blame Ukrainian forces, or assault a small portion of its personal forces with chemical weapons to “justify” a response in type.
Or it could find a stockpile of “Ukrainian” chemical weapons and use this as a post-hoc justification of the invasion, much like how america used the declare of alleged weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq within the second Gulf Warfare.
Whereas that is all hypothesis for now, it demonstrates how the spectre of chemical weapons looms over the Ukraine invasion.
If chemical weapons had been used, the results can be horrific – not simply by way of lack of life, but additionally as a result of the areas impacted would change into uninhabitable.
Many chemical weapons persist within the setting. Within the case of some (nerve brokers particularly), a single contact on the pores and skin is sufficient to trigger demise in seconds or minutes. Decontaminating affected areas can be enormously troublesome and harmful.
For now, we have now not seen Russian troopers geared up with the protecting tools wanted to function in a chemical-hazard setting. This means chemical weapons use shouldn’t be imminent.
Learn extra:
Ukraine warfare: grim spectre of chemical and organic weapons raises fears of Putin’s soiled arsenal
Tactical nuclear weapons
The opposite mass destruction risk related right here is nuclear weapons, each tactical and strategic. It’s estimated Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, with a complete of 4,477 nuclear weapons (of which 1,912 are regarded as tactical nuclear weapons).
Tactical nuclear weapons are meant to be used on the battlefield, whereas strategic nuclear weapons are used to destroy strategic targets reminiscent of cities. In sensible phrases, the one key distinction between them is the supply system. Tactical nuclear weapons are deployed utilizing shorter-range supply techniques reminiscent of artillery, short-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles or tactical plane.
Given their focus, they might have decrease explosive yields than strategic weapons – however not essentially. Most fashionable tactical nuclear warheads have far higher explosive energy than the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US throughout the second world warfare.
Operationally, tactical nuclear weapons can be able to blowing large, deep holes in opposing strains. As such, they might facilitate a breakthrough of Ukrainian defences, or present a option to destroy important targets reminiscent of airfields or key staging areas.
Preparations for such an assault can be troublesome to detect. Lots of the weapons techniques being utilized by Russia are “dual-capable”, which means they’ll ship typical and nuclear weapons.
The Iskander short-range ballistic missile is a ‘dual-capable’ weapon.
Protection Ministry Press Service/AP
Whereas nuclear weapons use is unlikely, Russian President Vladimir Putin has elevated the alert stage of his nuclear forces, and issued poorly veiled threats alluding to Russia’s nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to NATO intervention within the battle.
The danger of nuclear weapons use by Russia may enhance, nevertheless, if Putin is additional backed right into a wall and Russia feels its progress is being more and more derailed. That is extraordinarily unlikely, however not inconceivable.
What’s unknown is how the West would react to the usage of nuclear weapons. Whereas there can be justified outrage, it could nicely deter the West from additional involvement in order to keep away from being drawn right into a full-scale nuclear battle.
This is able to nicely and actually be uncharted territory. Nuclear weapons have by no means been used throughout a time when a number of nations possess them.
Russia’s ‘de-escalation’ doctrine
Ought to the battle escalate and NATO get entangled, the worst doable consequence can be a strategic nuclear alternate between NATO and Russia. On this situation, either side would search the whole destruction of the opposite, concentrating on cities and different key strategic targets.
If a traditional battle between NATO and Russia occurred (which Russia would virtually actually lose), Russia would instantly search to “de-escalate” the battle as per its nuclear doctrine.
Whereas this may sound nice on paper, in observe it’s something however. What this technique truly alludes to is: escalate to de-escalate. Russia would goal for a speedy escalation, to the purpose of utilizing nuclear weapons, to power NATO to again down.
Whereas that is alarming, it’s additionally coldly logical. Russia calculates NATO could also be prepared to threat typical battle, however not nuclear warfare. So a direct escalation throughout the nuclear threshold may nicely give NATO pause.
Ought to it come to this, Russia would possible not goal cities or giant troop concentrations (as this is able to threat galvanising assist amongst NATO populations for retaliation).
As an alternative, Russia would both conduct a remaining warning shot (reminiscent of by detonating a nuclear weapon over the ocean), or hit a number of strategic targets whereas minimising NATO and civilian losses. This might embody vital airfields, ports, highway and rail junctions, munitions dumps or gas storage amenities, as some examples.
NATO intervention could show disastrous
The Russian authorities after all denies it will use this technique. It insists it will solely use nuclear weapons to defend Russia, and never in a preemptive method.
Nevertheless, varied statements by Russian defence officers through the years point out a doctrine of de-escalation and preemptive nuclear threats. The US has overtly stated it considers de-escalation to be Russia’s guiding nuclear doctrine.
Occasions could transpire that might simply result in the scenario escalating, during which case the danger of a full nuclear alternate is important.
For instance, there have been calls for for NATO to implement a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Whereas this may initially sound cheap, it means NATO plane would wish to interact and shoot down Russian plane working over Ukraine. Russia would possible retaliate, and the battle could nicely spiral uncontrolled.
NATO intervention of any type would deliver the world nearer to nuclear warfare than at any time within the post-Chilly Warfare period. And the potential devastation can’t be ignored.
