Leaked Russian military files reveal criteria for nuclear strike

[Social Media]

 

Leaked Russian military documents have revealed startling criteria for the potential use of nuclear weapons, shedding light on Russia's strategic thinking and military preparedness. These classified files, spanning from 2008 to 2014, offer insight into the thresholds for employing tactical nuclear strikes, which experts say are lower than what Russia has publicly acknowledged.

 

According to the leaked documents, Russia has developed scenarios and training exercises involving the use of nuclear weapons, including tactical strikes, at an early stage of conflict with major world powers such as China. These revelations challenge previous assumptions about Russia's nuclear posture and underscore the seriousness with which it views potential threats to its security.

 

The criteria for a potential nuclear response outlined in the documents range from an enemy incursion on Russian territory to specific triggers such as the destruction of strategic assets like ballistic missile submarines. This suggests that Russia's threshold for nuclear use is lower than previously thought and underscores its willingness to consider nuclear options in a variety of scenarios.

 

The leaked files also provide insights into Russia's views on its relationship with China, highlighting deep-seated suspicions despite growing economic and military cooperation between the two countries. While Russia has forged closer ties with Beijing in recent years, the documents reveal that it continues to view China as a potential adversary, with military exercises simulating scenarios of a Chinese invasion.

 

Moreover, the documents shed light on Russia's broader military doctrine and its reliance on nuclear weapons as a cornerstone of its defense policy. They reveal a readiness to use tactical nuclear weapons for a range of goals, including containing aggression and preventing the loss of battles or territory.

 

These revelations have raised concerns among experts about the potential implications for regional and global security. The prospect of nuclear escalation, even in limited scenarios, underscores the need for continued dialogue and diplomacy to prevent conflict and ensure stability.

 

While the leaked documents provide valuable insights into Russia's military thinking, they also highlight the complexities and challenges of nuclear deterrence in the modern era. As tensions between major powers continue to simmer, understanding and managing the risks associated with nuclear weapons remains paramount for global security.

 

29.02.24

Source

 

[RuamRudy]

Further teeth baring from Putin?

[herfiehandbag]

Tactical nuclear weapons ( small nukes) were always the NATO option in the Cold War scenario when their conventional forces had been overwhelmed. We always wondered on which river/canal line or feature they would have been used on, Weser, Paderborn gap, almost certainly the Rhine; if the Russians had come ( "When Ivan comes over the IGB..")

 

Russian policy is exactly the same. Perhaps they are likely to go nuclear earlier.

[Tug]

Perhaps this was purposely leaked?who know for sure,we do know Putin’s military and weapons leave a lot to be desired as far as effectiveness and reliability we do know he has absolutely no problem killing anyone or thing that gets in his way it’s a dangerous world we live in……

[thaibeachlovers]

Soooo, "someone" just found the plans lying around, in a toilet perhaps.

 

It's like no one remembers the well worn tactic of planting fake plans where the enemy can find them to deflect from the actual plans.

 

I'm not saying they are fake, but the US intel community thought Saddam had WMDs, and look at how that turned out. I wonder if they gave up looking for them yet.

[thaibeachlovers]

46 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Tactical nuclear weapons ( small nukes) were always the NATO option in the Cold War scenario when their conventional forces had been overwhelmed. We always wondered on which river/canal line or feature they would have been used on, Weser, Paderborn gap, almost certainly the Rhine; if the Russians had come ( "When Ivan comes over the IGB..")

 

Russian policy is exactly the same. Perhaps they are likely to go nuclear earlier.

I remember making one of those plastic model kits of a big gun the US had to fire tactical nuclear warheads when I was young.

I also talked to a guy that served in BAOR that said they expected to live about five minutes after a Soviet attack started.

[herfiehandbag]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Soooo, "someone" just found the plans lying around, in a toilet perhaps.

 

It's like no one remembers the well worn tactic of planting fake plans where the enemy can find them to deflect from the actual plans.

 

I'm not saying they are fake, but the US intel community thought Saddam had WMDs, and look at how that turned out. I wonder if they gave up looking for them yet.

They went into Syria.

 

The actual intelligence thinking that led to suspecting Saddam's regime had Chemical and Biological Weapons was not at all far fetched. I don't want to comment on the political shenanigans which seized on that view and ran with it. We know that he had used them (nerve agents and mustard gas) against the Kurds and other dissident groups. They are not particularly difficult to manufacture - if your industrial base is capable of making fly spray then it is capable of making nerve agent - that is what fly spray is, in a very mild form. We used to use it to test our detectors. Likewise Biological agents. The problem comes with delivery - his air force was comprehensively buggered, and he had no way of getting it to the target. Once the US Patriot system had got the measure of his old Scuds then the only remaining option for dumping it on his enemies was gone. He got rid of what he had rather than be caught with it.

Edited February 29 by herfiehandbag

[rabas]

4 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

Tactical nuclear weapons ( small nukes) were always the NATO option in the Cold War scenario when their conventional forces had been overwhelmed. We always wondered on which river/canal line or feature they would have been used on, Weser, Paderborn gap, almost certainly the Rhine; if the Russians had come ( "When Ivan comes over the IGB..")

 

Russian policy is exactly the same. Perhaps they are likely to go nuclear earlier.

 

True. But the West had neutron bombs. A neutron bomb has a very small 'blast' but puts out a vast burst of invisible neutron radiation that can kill tank crews with little damage to  tanks or other major infrastructure.

 

This was done because it was inconceivable NATO would invade Russia thus the battle would be on NATO territory. (You can count on Russia being the bad guy) 

 

You can see from Eastern Ukraine that Putin cares nothing for people. The only way to stop him is to demonstrate how he will be defeated. 

 

[herfiehandbag]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I remember making one of those plastic model kits of a big gun the US had to fire tactical nuclear warheads when I was young.

I also talked to a guy that served in BAOR that said they expected to live about five minutes after a Soviet attack started.

Just about any gun down to 155 mm calibre is capable of firing a nuclear shell. The American M109 system, which was then (1980s) and is now  (in a heavily modified form) the Wests standard field artillery pieces was nuclear capable. We (USA and UK)  also had the M107 175mm long range gun and the M110 8 inch (240mm) howitzer - a venerable weapon but you wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of one of its shells! These two, plus the Lance battlefield missile system were the core of the battlefield nuclear arsenal.

 

As for BAOR, 5 minutes was perhaps a touch over the top. Certainly it's survival in all out battle with the Warsaw Pact could probably be reckoned in days rather than weeks. We had 4 Armoured Divisions. 1 2 and 3 Divs forming the main line of defence, 4 Div forming a screen force, which would then withdraw through the main FEBA divisions to regroup as a counterattack force. We never really thought about that, there wouldn't have been enough of it left. Then of course we had the TA, whose battalions were supposed to move around the armoured battlefield on foot with rifle and pack. Not really an act of war!

The nuclear option would have been called for when we (NATO) had been pushed back to, probably, the Rhine, if not at one of the earlier critical lines. One of the big problems is that a defensive battle has the greatest chance of succeeding when fought in depth. The West Germans, not surprisingly, wanted it fought as far forward as possible. We used to joke that if you looked at their map stores they had nothing west of a line Hamburg - Hannover - Kassel, but everything you needed to take yourself to Warsaw and beyond!

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

As for BAOR, 5 minutes was perhaps a touch over the top.

He was saying they expected to be nuked at the outset, not that the Russians would fight a conventional war.