Will the Russians use nuclear weapons?
I think it is the most popular question of the period, but before understanding “if” we need to understand the “for what”, simply based on certain facts.
In itself the question is how to ask: will NATO borders end the Maginot Line in World War II?
I say this for a reason. But first let's clarify some starting points. That is, HOW should they use them? There is a big difference. And this thing needs to be clarified.
The division of missiles between "hypersonic" and "ballistic" is quite artificial, in the sense that there are cruise missiles that are not hypersonic but do not follow ballistic trajectories (the most famous is, I think, the American tomahawk).
So there are three cases.
- hypersonic missiles
- cruise missiles
- ballistic missiles
Depending on these categories, we must ask ourselves how and at what notice they can be intercepted.
If a missile is hypersonic like the Kinzhal is (which is not exactly the best) and the distance is short, you will notice that it has been launched (the electromagnetic waves of the radars are however faster) but do not do it. in time to act because in the time it takes to give an alarm, the missile has already arrived. Furthermore, it is difficult to predict the trajectory: at Mach 10 minimal differences in air density produce strong deviations of the trajectory: the missile then lets itself be deflected at random and periodically "gets back on course": the main novelty is this. This gives it a fairly unpredictable trajectory. But beware: in the short distance (in the case of a tactical missile), it is in fact a ballistic missile that flickers a lot, but gets back on course.
In the case of cruise missiles… it depends on who you are up against. Cruise missiles can perform elusive, but generally predictable trajectories, so in the end if you have good satellites you can calculate in probabilistic terms what the targets are, put them on standby, and save what was to be saved. Russian cruise missiles were not very effective in Ukraine precisely because the US saw them coming and warned the targets, who evacuated or took countermeasures.
The ballistic missile, on the other hand, has a trajectory that follows the normal ballistic tables, and the point of arrival can be calculated with a certain precision, from the earliest stages of launch.
Because it is important? Because missiles have a cost, and therefore must be used accordingly. Suppose someone sees an empty Ukrainian Army Jeep.
It is empty, so it will cost a maximum of 50K €, if it is old. Good.
Does it make sense to launch a missile costing 1M € at him? No. If you do, it is not your missile that inflicts losses on the Ukrainians, it is the Jeep Ukraina that inflicts losses on your arsenal: with only 5oK € they have done you damage for 1M €
This usually allows you to predict the target of the missiles: the calculations return a VAST area, but eventually there will be those 3.4 targets in that area that are worthwhile. And so as soon as you have a vague idea of the area being targeted, those present are alerted a few minutes in advance.
Let's get to the point. Let's imagine that Putin launches a modern nuclear, something like 1-2Kt. He's spending a lot of money, so he's gonna have to find a target not cheap.
The bang comes and both seismographs and satellites recognize it, the former by the sound of the explosion and the latter by the gamma-ray burst.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident )
Now the problem lies with NATO.
Why'? Because from now on, another nuclear could be on EVERY missile that Putin launches.
- if Russia launches a ballistic missile, eh, we see it's headed for Ukraine and we know it's not headed for us. So we don't react, or we react measuredly.
- if Russia launches a cruise, well, let's say that we act immediately for the response , and we hope that it lands immediately hitting the target: from the moment in which the target could be us (let's say if it gets too close to the west), we will launch the missiles . We will not wait for the Russians to strike.
- if Russia fires a hypersonic missile, NATO would react anyway, it being impossible to calculate whether it will hit a NATO country or not.
That is the question. From the moment the FIRST of these nukes hit, there are two cases:
- Putin really intends to wage a global nuclear war.
- Putin will no longer be able to launch any cruise missile, except a hypersonic one, without obtaining a reaction.
We can say that Putin will launch the first atomic bomb ONLY if he intends to unleash a full-scale nuclear war. If you don't mean this kind of escalation, there's no point in tying your hands.
The same would be true for bombers: since you cannot predict the course of a strategic bomber, and the taboo is broken, any Russian strategic bomber crossing a certain line would be a nuclear weapon hazard. And therefore, NATO would respond.
The question "how would it answer" is quite complicated: you certainly can't answer a nuclear missile with less than that. So there is talk of launching nuclear missiles. And that ends with 90 million deaths on the first day alone.
It is not the end of the planet, but certainly the end of Europe as we know it. I mean, with big cities. And little would remain of Russia, in the sense that St. PeterBurg, Kaliningrad and Moscow would not survive anyway.
Ultimately, therefore, the only reason why Putin could use a nuclear power is NOT "to show that he has them". Quite the contrary: from the moment he showed it, he would be forced to suspend all missile activity on Ukraine, or to unleash a wide-ranging nuclear war.
For this reason it is much more plausible that it uses chemical weapons, and this is also the reason why many experts think it will escalate just like this.
Having said that, let's open a parenthesis to talk a little about the "new" Russian Kinzhal missiles. Which are not "new", and they are not even "advanced".
Here we need to understand what we are talking about when we talk about advanced hypersonic weapons.
Let's start from the beginning.
Every ICBM on this planet is hypersonic. For the simple reason that it has to leave the atmosphere and enter orbit, so it MUST reach hypersonic speeds. The Space Shuttle was hypersonic upon reentry (20X the speed of sound). In short, all ICBM missiles existing in the last 30-40 years are "hypersonic".
The missile that sent the LEM to the Moon was also hypersonic, given that the speed of escape from the earth is 40.320Km / h, (11.200m / s) therefore hypersonic.
So far there weren't even tactical hypersonic weapons, for a reason: the amount of non-hypersonic cruise missiles shot down before reaching the target is so small that it is worth investing in electronic countermeasures, rather than giving hypersonic speed to gods. cruise missiles.
Why then does Kinzhal exist?
During the 1980s, when there were no statistics on the cruuas shot down in action, and when there was a competition to see who was cooler, BOTH the US and the Russians tried to improve the missiles they had, both to be hypersonic ( such as ICBMs) and to be launched from airplanes (and therefore not to be discovered at launch, in the early stage).
Good. The American project was called Phoenix, the Russian one was i, Kinzhal, then known as 9K720 ISKANDER with some modifications.
After the collapse of the wall, the US abandoned the Phoenix project, after also attempting to launch an ICBM from an airplane, with questionable results, and concentrated on electronics: it was 1988, the war in IRAQ started shortly after and they were able to do statistics on cruise missiles, seeing that it was not worth the candle to make them hypersonic, and it was more convenient to make the guidance system and countermeasures intelligent.
The Russians, after the collapse, resumed the project and twenty years later the SS-26 “Stone”, or 9K7020 “ISKANDER”, was equipped with another engine and called Kinzhal.
But the Kinzhal is a bit of a scam: it is in fact a very fast ballistic missile, which makes unpredictable maneuvers because being hypersonic causes it to continually stray from its trajectory. But by itself, it's a very fast ballistic missile.
Why am I saying this? Perce 'the REAL news' of hypersonic IS NOT in tactical missiles, but in strategic ones. This is two types of missiles:
- gliders
- hypersonic cruise
These two missiles have nothing to do with the enhanced wreck that is the Kinzhal, but they are two completely different technologies.
In one case, the glider is the Chinese object that scared the US. It is about taking a "normal" ICBM. If you want to stop it, you have to calculate its trajectory. A normal ICBM goes into orbit, takes the shortest route (to strike first) gets over the nation from the strike and releases the subnuclear ammunition.
This allows the enemy to observe its departure, and from there it can (as the Aegis system does) calculate where it wants to go. In case, a NikeX is thrown at him or now that there is Aegis, a RIM-161, or an Arrow if you are Israeli, or an Aster if you are Italian or French.
The idea of the Glider is that it has been observed that falling missiles tend to "bounce" off the atmosphere as flat stones do on water. So, by adding an engine and a drive system, you can rarely lengthen the trajectory, deflect it, maneuver, and so on.
However, the Chinese have arrived at this result. The Russians say they got there, but one has never been seen flying (unlike the Chinese ones, which US radars have seen) and a couple of times their test launch pads have exploded, and even badly. . (leaving radioactivity).
In addition to the glider, there are supersonic cruise missiles, which use a scramjet effect to advance: India has hypersonic missiles for naval use, and China has built several hypersonic cruise ships.
Ultimately, I mean, all the hype about Kinzhal is hype. Clearly all the military are excited and would like a new toy, but there is a debate in between: one wonders, that is, if it is worthwhile to invest in countermeasures and agility (such as having fifth and sixth generation aircraft) or in velocity (as for the hypersonic).
The reason is that in the end a visible hypersonic missile is too fast for human methods of reaction: but if we computerize the reaction, as with the Aegis, it is absolutely not certain that a missile passes because it is hypersonic: the Glider, for example, is a hypersonic that takes longer to strike. The advantage of being hypersonic, that is, it decreases over time as long as you have a sophisticated sighting system capable of observing it.
The point is that it is difficult to distinguish a hypersonic that arrives at you in two minutes from an "invisible" plane that you see only two minutes before it is at you. There are two schools of thought on the benefits of following one path or another, and each has its reasons.
So pay attention to all this Hype based on "hypersonic": in Grendizer there was everything, but in the end the Kinzhal is an old wreck from 1988 with a modified engine and a slightly better driving system.
Nothing to do with Chinese toys or Indian anti-ship missiles.