How would a Putin nuclear strike look and could he really do?

Vladimir Putin's renewed threat with a nuclear war that was spoken during a bitter and long-lifier speech has revived the fears that in a so-called "tactical" blow he could drop a atomic bomb on Ukraine or even a NATO allied.

"I would like to remind you that our country also has different means of destruction," he said on Wednesday. "If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will surely use all the funds available to us to protect Russia and our people."

"This is not a bluff," he added.

What would "tactical" nuclear strikes look like?

nuclear weapons are generally classified either as strategically or tactically, the former being used to win a war and the latter to win a single battle.

According to the British Security Think Tank Rusi, Russia's tactical arsenal is limited to around 300 miles-compared to a strategic nuclear rocket with a range of 3,000 miles.

tactical weapons also have a lower explosive force, such as 10kt [Kilotons of Dynamite] SSC-8.

but also tactical nuclear weapons have an immense destructive power. The atomic bomb dropped by the United States on Hiroshima had an explosive force of around 15KT.

Such a use of nuclear weapons by Russia would be unprecedented, so it is difficult to predict how such an attack could develop. But analysts that follow the Russian nuclear hetorics have sketched a handful of scenarios.

Lawrence Freedman, expert in war research at King’s College London, said that “the potential goals for limited nuclear strikes [in Ukraine] are those that have already been identified for conventional strikes - critical infrastructures more than cities”.

In a blog post, he also pointed out that the uninhabited snake island could be destroyed with nuclear weapons as a demonstration of the power of Russia, fear in Ukraine and in the west. This has its own risks, he said, such as that the bomb does not explode and causes humiliation.

At the beginning of this month, Russia also carried out nuclear submarine exercises in the Arctic, another deployment area for a possible demonstration.

Even a nuclear strike with low explosive power would destroy large population centers such as Birmingham or London. Nuclear weapons analysts say that a bomb that is thrown on Washington would kill up to 300,000 people, not enclosed those that were damaged by nuclear radiation in the wider area.

would Putin really do?

There are some concerns that the Russian head of state could have lost the reference to reality and that such a nightmarish step could use if he is still humiliated by the war in Ukraine.

Ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson once described him as a "irrational" actor who "possibly logically" thought about his military goals.

In terms of logistics, Mr. Putin has the authority under Russian law to fire nuclear weapons in the event of an existential threat. It should always have a "cheget" or nuclear briefcase on hand, which connects it to the management and control of the Russian nuclear program.

But the cheget does not contain a nuclear "red button"; Instead, it transmits the command to the Russian general staff or the central military command.

This central command has two ways to start a start: You can either send codes to arms commanders or use a backup system that handles all command chains to start land-based atomic weapons.

If Mr. Putin opens his cheget and gives the command, you can only speculate whether the Russian central command would follow him. There were rumors that the Russian head of state is exposed to violent internal criticism because of the previous failure when invading Ukraine.

Perhaps a command to fire nuclear weapons on Ukraine or a NATO allied, even go too a step too far for his closest generals.

so it could be a bluff?

Western leaders have largely dismissed Putin's words as bluff - despite his express claim of the opposite.

The fact that previous nuclear threats were not underpinned undermining this. Just a few days after the invasion, he put Russia's nuclear deterrent in high alert. He also warned the Ukrainian supporters that if they intervened, they would "face consequences that they have never experienced in their history".

Russian propaganda networks have repeatedly and cheerfully threatened to annihilate the West since the beginning of the invasion.

The most alarming example of this is the Russian state television presenter Olga Skabeeva, who said on the air that Moscow should have bombarded the Queen's funeral on the day of the queen to cause maximum chaos. Andrey Gurulyov, a member of the Russian Duma, responded appreciatively that Great Britain could be transformed into a "Mars desert".

However,

nuclear analysts pointed out a subtle change in Putin's speech on Wednesday morning.

Andrey Baklitskiy, expert at the UN Institute for Completion Research, noted that Putin threatened with a nuclear war "if the territorial integrity of our country is threatened".

"These statements go beyond the Russian nuclearoctrine, which only suggests the Russian first use in the conventional war if the state's existence is threatened," he said.

"Putin adds 'territorial integrity' and [the] very abstract protection of people, independence and freedom ... coming from the person who has the sole decision on nuclear weapons, this must be taken seriously," he said.

In other words, Mr. Putin could put a trap: If the Ukraine continues its counter -offensive on a occupied area, the Moscow declares "Russian" after shammaking, it could provide him with an excuse for a nuclear strike.

How would the West react?

Western leaders do not seem to be too concerned about the prospect of a nuclear harmony.

But if the unthinkable and Russian nuclear weapons were fired to the West, he would probably react in the same way.

Prime Minister Liz Truss said that she was "ready" to press the nuclear button during the Tory management competition-even if, as her interviewer formulated, this leads to "global annihilation".

But the reaction to a nuclear strike of smaller dimensions to Ukrainian territory is less clear. It would most likely be directed by President Joe Biden, who refused in an interview last week to explain his reaction to a possible chemical or "tactical" nuclear strike.

"Not, not, not," said Mr. Biden when he was asked how he would react to Mr. Putin's weapons. "It would change the face of war like nothing since World War II."

When he was pushed according to details, he added: "Do you think, I would tell you exactly what it would be? Of course I will not tell you. It will have consequences.

If the radiation of an atomic bomb in Ukraine spreads to European allies such as Poland, Article five of the NATO defense contract could trigger the UK, the United States and allies to defend Poland. How this would work exactly remains unclear.

and what about Russia's allies?

recent statements between China and India, two allies, who initially were neutral to Putin's war, indicate that the federal states are now distance from the conflict. This indicates that you are hardly looking at seeing another big escalation from Mr. Putin.

China made an explanation on Wednesday, in which it pushed for a "ceasefire through dialogue" to solve the invasion, and pointed out that Beijing is that Moscow takes drastic steps like a nuclear war.

"Every step towards tactical nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction [Weapons of Mass Destruction] - then Russia immediately loses China, its most valuable ally," said Dr. Paul Dorfman, an expert in nuclear security who advised the British government, in a Twitter contribution.

"In fact, Putin loses everything."