WAR POLL - Tactical nuke in Ukraine area?

Will a nuke be used in the Ukraine area?


  • Total voters
    132

Oreally

Right from the start
Yes, the Russian forces will use a tactical nuclear weapon at some point. I'd say within a month, actually. They still have to keep their front lines stable until that 300k new troops are online and in the personnel replenishment system.

That weapon will most likely be used on or around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant complex. Zaporizhzia is around 310 miles/ 11 hours northwest of the beginning of the Chernobyl exclusion zone.

Zaporizhzhia to Chernobyl Exclusion Zone - 8 ways to travel via , and train

Everyone seems to forget Chernobyl was in Ukraine. When it went, western Europe was blanketed by a huge cloud of radiation from it.

Zaporizhzia is 6 times larger than Chernobyl; and is in the same wind pattern.

When Russia uses a tactical nuke on the place; not only will Ukraine suffer from ground contamination. Much of Eastern Europe gets their power from that plant complex. In addition; western AND eastern Europe (with a number of NATO members now in Eastern Europe)will both get huge radiation doses.

If that happens; would Poland, Romania or any of the Baltic countries invoke Article 5 due to rad dosages? Would NATO respond? I'd bet the answers to both questions is a resounding Yes.

Russian forces would get a two for one win if they used a tactical nuke on that power plant. They would get back at Ukraine AND NATO.
no , that makes no tactical sense. it is a MAD ploy that is way to early to play.

the most likely use of tac nukes now would be to destroy the bridges over the Dnipro and also to really destroy the main power stations around the country.

that would freeze the Ukr units in place without significant reinforcements.

and that would have to be done only when there use was absolutely necessary, as in around nov , if the mobilized forces aren't enough to stem the Ukr in Kherson.
 

Doc1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I believe that the West has much more incentive than Russia does to use a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, I expect the West to use a nuclear weapon in a false flag context.

90% of the blather about the use of nuclear weapons has come from Western leaders warning about Russian nuclear weapons use. It's not coming from Moscow. I believe that this is likely part of a psyop to condition Western audiences to expect a nuclear weapon detonation in Ukraine and that, if and when it occurs, the public will already be primed to believe that it was Russia that did it.

To the posters who have inferred that Russia is losing the war and that Mr. Putin will use a nuclear weapon to save his bacon, I will flat out state that you are wrong.

The idea that Russia is losing or will lose the Ukraine war is preposterous. Russia is a huge country and has barely begun to mobilize its military. Russia's conventional war making capability is much greater than most Westerners appreciate. Russia has been taking a very methodical, measured and somewhat slow approach to the war.

Further, a single nuclear weapon wouldn't really help Moscow that much. What would they use it against and how would that use appreciably strengthen their position? The knee jerk reaction is to say that they'd obliterate Kiev and destroy the decision making center. There are two things to consider here: 1st, Russia could destroy the government centers and leaders - if they wished - with conventional missiles and Fuel-Air bombs. 2nd, Kiev is a very historic Russian city and the Russians almost certainly don't want to completely destroy it.

Russia, as it has done in the past, will allow General Winter to be its vanguard and, as the really cold weather arrives, see Ukraine and the rest of Europe freeze in the dark, reducing their war fighting capability substantially.

Best
Doc
 

Oreally

Right from the start
I believe that the West has much more incentive than Russia does to use a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, I expect the West to use a nuclear weapon in a false flag context.

90% of the blather about the use of nuclear weapons has come from Western leaders warning about Russian nuclear weapons use. It's not coming from Moscow. I believe that this is likely part of a psyop to condition Western audiences to expect a nuclear weapon detonation in Ukraine and that, if and when it occurs, the public will already be primed to believe that it was Russia that did it.

To the posters who have inferred that Russia is losing the war and that Mr. Putin will use a nuclear weapon to save his bacon, I will flat out state that you are wrong.

The idea that Russia is losing or will lose the Ukraine war is preposterous. Russia is a huge country and has barely begun to mobilize its military. Russia's conventional war making capability is much greater than most Westerners appreciate. Russia has been taking a very methodical, measured and somewhat slow approach to the war.

Further, a single nuclear weapon wouldn't really help Moscow that much. What would they use it against and how would that use appreciably strengthen their position? The knee jerk reaction is to say that they'd obliterate Kiev and destroy the decision making center. There are two things to consider here: 1st, Russia could destroy the government centers and leaders - if they wished - with conventional missiles and Fuel-Air bombs. 2nd, Kiev is a very historic Russian city and the Russians almost certainly don't want to completely destroy it.

Russia, as it has done in the past, will allow General Winter to be its vanguard and, as the really cold weather arrives, see Ukraine and the rest of Europe freeze in the dark, reducing their war fighting capability substantially.

Best
Doc


"It's not coming from Moscow"

come on. are your eyes and ears totally closed? i mean, we got on this thread, how many instances of nukes threats, insinuations, and signals in the past two months alone?
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Remember that strange alert in NYC not to long ago about how to prepare for a dirty bomb going off?
Now that would really mess up the financial systems. Maybe 911 was their first attempt.
Now they have posters in the subways telling you what to do when a nuke goes of 1664269025461.png
 

von Koehler

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Russia is bleeding cash from reduced natural gas and oil sales, which represents a big chunk of their economy.

Poorly equipped Russian troops will suffer as much if not more then Ukrainian troops will. Snow doesn't fall only on Ukrainian soldiers.
 

desert_fox

Threadkiller
I voted no, but that could be my normalcy bias kicking in. The world in which we have known is changed vastly since the Covid, the Steal, and now this. My heart yearns for the old days and sometimes it over rules my brain.

My brain tells me that the Pandoras Box has been opened and the clock is ticking. Governments are the largest killers out there (domestically and worldwide) and the nuclear option is very tempting and convenient.
 

Doc1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
"It's not coming from Moscow"

come on. are your eyes and ears totally closed? i mean, we got on this thread, how many instances of nukes threats, insinuations, and signals in the past two months alone?

Oreally, very few official statements about nuclear weapons use have come from the Russian government. As I said:

"90% of the blather about the use of nuclear weapons has come from Western leaders warning about Russian nuclear weapons use. It's not coming from Moscow."

The overwhelming number of statements and news pieces about nuclear weapons use in Ukraine originated in the West. The Russians have been extremely low key regarding this issue. I further suggest that my observation regarding Western/NATO psyops priming the public to expect a nuclear detonation has worked a treat in your case.

If a nuclear detonation occurs in Kiev or any other Ukrainian site, the public will be absolutely convinced that the Russians did it and any Russian protestations to the contrary will be a.) mostly censored in the western media. (and) b.) not be believed by 90% of the western public.

Lastly, I will reiterate my belief that a single nuclear detonation would have very little military utility for Russia. A plan to use multiple low yield weapons could have significant military usefulness, but not a single detonation. If we ever see a single nuclear detonation in Ukraine, I'd be 99% certain it was a NATO false flag.

Best
Doc
 

Oreally

Right from the start
Oreally, very few official statements about nuclear weapons use have come from the Russian government. As I said:

"90% of the blather about the use of nuclear weapons has come from Western leaders warning about Russian nuclear weapons use. It's not coming from Moscow."

The overwhelming number of statements and news pieces about nuclear weapons use in Ukraine originated in the West. The Russians have been extremely low key regarding this issue. I further suggest that my observation regarding Western/NATO psyops priming the public to expect a nuclear detonation has worked a treat in your case.

If a nuclear detonation occurs in Kiev or any other Ukrainian site, the public will be absolutely convinced that the Russians did it and any Russian protestations to the contrary will be a.) mostly censored in the western media. (and) b.) not be believed by 90% of the western public.

Lastly, I will reiterate my belief that a single nuclear detonation would have very little military utility for Russia. A plan to use multiple low yield weapons could have significant military usefulness, but not a single detonation. If we ever see a single nuclear detonation in Ukraine, I'd be 99% certain it was a NATO false flag.

Best
Doc
so former RF pre4sident Medvedev giving out purple PR ending with literal biblical apocalyptic quotes isn't official enough?

or maybe this from the main thread, just a few minutes ago?


View: https://twitter.com/FirstSquawk/status/1574650814252974081?t=A2aJI-ZQzUfNJUTTC8efjw&s=19

View: https://twitter.com/FirstSquawk/status/1574650814252974081?t=A2aJI-ZQzUfNJUTTC8efjw&s=19


and on their 60 Minutes show, all full of nuclear threats against the west.
 

AlfaMan

Has No Life - Lives on TB
no , that makes no tactical sense. it is a MAD ploy that is way to early to play.

the most likely use of tac nukes now would be to destroy the bridges over the Dnipro and also to really destroy the main power stations around the country.

that would freeze the Ukr units in place without significant reinforcements.

and that would have to be done only when there use was absolutely necessary, as in around nov , if the mobilized forces aren't enough to stem the Ukr in Kherson.

If Putin were thinking like an American, then yes, this would be a crazy move.

But Putin, and the rest of his military leadership over there aren't American nor do they think like Americans.

Putin has had the Ukranians hand him his hat in regards to the current "special military operation". The Russians are taking losses far in excess of their worst case estimates. They have lost equipment that's near impossible to replace (many of their tanks are upgraded Soviet era equipment, guess where those Soviet era tanks were built. Yep, Ukraine.)

Putin's call for more reserves hasn't gotten him the troops he needs; rather he's developing a unique new facet of Russian society-that facet being the invention of the Russian draft dodger. If it were the Soviet era men would line up to serve the country; today those men are running away like rats to whatever safe haven that takes them.

Lets talk sanctions. Sanctions have crippled the Russian economy, no matter how rosy RT and Rio Novosti and Tass paint that picture. The everyday Russian Ivan and Ivankas are suffering. Not a good recipe to engender love and support to the current regime. The west cutting off sources of hard currency to Russia is crippling as well. All they have is oil and India and China won't buy enough to make up the loss of European fuel revenues. Europe is going to have a cold winter; Russia is going to have a colder-and hungrier winter.

Finally, nothing Putin has done can be considered a "get back" to the West for the sanctions and NATO creeping up against their borders, and making them a near total pariah to the rest of the world. Friendly relations with China? No-China using Russia as a oil supply convenience, nothing more. China kicked out the Soviets in China in 1960, 2 and 9 years later they were killing each other in border clashes.

Putin's generals are against the wall. Popping a tac nuke on Zaporizhzhia makes perfect sense. The cloud of radiation from those reactors being breached hurts Europe, from a power supply and a radiation standpoint. It hurts NATO, because popping that plant at will makes NATO appear impotent on the world stage and if that's an "answer"Putin wants to give; then NATO would be impotent because they really couldn't respond in kind. Sure, give the Ukranians more weapons but that's no going to help the avalanche of bad press a nuke accident tthere would generate.

Plus, the Russian mind is somewhat fatalistic; more matter of fact than other people give them credit for. Russians wouldn't think twice hurting the rest of the world to soothe their bruised egos.

That's my take on what I said. You may or may not agree with it; but there's a few more puzzle pieces to ponder.
 

rmomaha

The Wise Man Prepares
Watching Trunews last night. Rick Wiles said he talked to a Russian some years back and said that Russia's plan for war on us was 2 stages. 1st stage that Spetsnaz undercover agents in the US, would take out government leadership first. 2nd stage would be taking out the West and East coasts with conventional, biological and nuclear weapons and leaving the middle untouched. Although I think they will hit Omaha where I live because of Stratcom.
 
Top