I think Putin is planning on nuking Kherson

[TrogL]

He's evacuating his people. It would send a message to NATO. It's far enough East that prevailing winds would take fallout away from Russia. The residual radiation would prevent further Ukrainian incursion.

[bluestarone]

1. Wouldn't surprise me, for sure. They want to

Kill a bunch of humans, for years.

[Bev54]

2. Or he is going to blow the dam

[GoCubsGo]

8. Yes, this is a far more likely scenario.

Also, it sounds like there's going to be a battle royale there pretty soon.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

57. That makes more sense, you don't poison the ground you will be taking over, it'll dry out

Eventually

[Irish_Dem]

3. He is quite capable of doing so. And the timing is right for him.

Putin has lost the war and is just fighting for dirt.

His power in Moscow is in jeopardy.

[RKP5637]

4. I think there's a good chance of something like that! Putin does not play

with a full deck of cards. He's brought so much misery on people of both countries and he is destroying Russia all for some crappy ideology he has ... to be the great Russian czar reuniting the USSR.

[Gaugamela]

5. Looking at the Ventusky weather map the prevailing winds would blow the

radiation toward Minsk, Moscow, and St. Petersburg.

[PortTack]

7. Exactly...he's bluffing

[Ray Bruns]

15. Putin doesn't bluff

[The_REAL_Ecumenist]

46. YES, he does!! How many threats has he made and not followed through with what he claimed he would?

Yes mam! He ABSOLUTELY DOES!

[paleotn]

48. Yes, he does.

Even evil dictators would rather not go out in a flash of blinding light, heat and gamma radiation.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

49. You forgot this:

That's pretty much all he's done regarding nukes.

[PortTack]

68. You're not serious right? He's been bluffing from the beginning of this war. It's all he's got

[sarisataka]

22. As I recall, the majority thought

The invasion was a bluff

[Jack the Greater]

58. As *I* recall Putin said there would be no invasion

... and I usually recall pretty correctly, so how could anyone say he was bluffing?

[Jack the Greater]

60. Some headlines from the time

Putin attacked Ukraine after insisting for months there was no plan to do so
Russia Denies Ukraine Invasion Plans While Stocking Up on Blood Supplies
U.S. Ramps Up Ukraine Warnings as Russia Denies Invasion Plans
In high-stakes meeting, Russia tells U.S. it isn't planning to invade Ukraine
Russia says it's not planning an invasion as the US and others raise concerns about troop buildup near Ukraine
Ukraine crisis: Putin says military drills 'purely defensive' and 'not a threat' as Western leaders warn invasion imminent
Russian Rhetoric Ahead of Attack Against Ukraine: Deny, Deflect, Mislead

[PortTack]

69. How many times have you heard the media proclaim that Poopin was going to go nuclear?

The build up of troops at Belarussia…for invasion…a bluff
He’s going to commit 10-20 million men to Ukraine… he doesn’t have a third that number, look at the demographics/population of Russia…physically not possible
All the false flags saying Ukraine did it when we all know who did it

He wants the world to be afraid. It isn’t working

[TrogL]

13. Oh, OK. I assumed it would go West

[Girard442]

6. If Putin actually does go nuclear, there's no plausible stopping place before all-out nuclear war.

Maybe if some Russian leaders actually executed Putin on live TV (with credible eyewitnesses), but maybe not even that.

[PortTack]

11. The US would not respond in kind. There would No doubt be a huge response, but not a nuclear one

Russia knows they cannot afford to draw the US and NATO into the war.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapon-us-response/661315/

[quakerboy]

30. game this out

Putin drops a nuke in ukraine. 2 maybe.

the us/nato do what exactly? Even if we dont match nuke for nuke.. we retaliate. And then they do, and we do and in 2 steps or 20 steps, bilateral nuclear war.

IF we do nothing.. well.. its over and we lost.
If we do something.. russia feels a need to retaliate.

That doesnt stop till someone blinks. Pretty much either we capitulate or russia decides putins time is over in an irreversable fashion.

Not good, but in all capitalss

[Girard442]

35. Yeah, nobody believes anymore Russia could respond in kind conventionally.

Not even Putin.

[PortTack]

67. I am gaming it out, and more importantly so is the pentagon. I didn't say the US or NATO would not r

Respond. It will just not be with nuclear weapons. There’s really nothing to gain by using nuclear weapons. This has been addressed by David Petraeus, mark Hertling and Ben Rhoades.

NATO would have no reason to capitulate. Russia is already almost too weak to continue in Ukraine. They aren’t winning on the battlefield except at Bakmut and then it’s so incremental compared to the wins Ukraine has had and is about to have in Kherson. They have no ability to take on NATO. The russians including Putin know this.

[quakerboy]

70. So.. follow it down the path

Russia nukes some bit of Ukraine.

The US/NATO.. what, say sink the black sea fleet? The specifics almost dont matter, its the fact that we step directly into the conflict rather than by proxy

And you think Putin will just take his lumps? As you point out, they seem rather weak on the ground. Which means either he capitulates.. or he has to respond to our "conventional" force response somehow, and he doesnt appear to have the conventional forces to do so.

[doc03]

9. I don't expect a nuke but he may blow the dam and blame

Ukraine.

[sarisataka]

10. The prevailing winds are west to east

So will carry fallout to Russia. Also militaries train to operate in radioactive contaminated areas so that would not stop Ukrainian advance.

If Kherson is nuked, Moscow and Washington will follow in 24-72 hours.

[intrepidity]

14. Neil deGrasse Tyson was on with Maher last week

and was saying not all nukes have fallout, and Bill got really excited, but I think Tyson was talking about a hydrogen bomb, so it was totally irrelevent to what Bill was expressing concern over (fallout). Was a weird exchange.

[TexLaProgressive]

17. It takes a fission bomb to detonate a fusion bomb

The fusion reaction doesn't really contribute to fallout, but because the reaction is triggered by fission and causes further fission, H-bombs generate at least as much fallout as atomic bombs.Sep 1, 2022

https://www.thoughtco.com/hydrogen-bomb-vs-atomic-bomb-4126580

[Silent3]

20. I'd like to see more info than is available at that link about the *amount* of fallout

While, yes, a fission bomb is needed as a trigger for fusion, I don't know how big that fission bomb has to be.

[Disaffected]

25. "...not all nukes have fallout"

??? You may have misunderstood what he said because that is decidedly not the case. Hydrogen bombs are triggered by a fission device which itself generates a lot of fallout plus, the fusion reaction in a hydrogen bomb generates a blizzard of neutrons some of which turn surrounding material into radioactive isotopes.

[jaxexpat]

31. Yeah and no kidding.

We really don't need stupid rumors of clean nuclear bombs. I can see Tyson stumbling into that sort of misinformation. He bumbles some times. He's not as good as the media has built him to be, IMO.

[Disaffected]

63. And a bit too

full of himself IMO.

[harumph]

34. A neutron bomb?

[TexLaProgressive]

66. Neutron bombs do use a very small fission device.

It is necessary to compress hydrogen enough to start fusion. To reduce the amount of blast and fallout damage it is intended to be used as an air blast weapon. The fusion reaction will generate neutrons and gamma radiation which will kill the living.

Air burst weapons limit fallout as compared to those close to the ground. The majority of fallout comes from the irradiation of solid particles which are sent high in the sky to be dispersed by the winds.

[EX500rider]

47. They all have fallout however..

Ground burst create lots of fallout and air burst create a lot less.... The ground burst radiates all the debris from the crater thrown up into the atmosphere.

[intrepidity]

12. That was my first thought when I first heard about this

I kept thinking "no, it doesn't make sense" but the guy is nucking futs.

[mucifer]

16. Goal is to destroy Ukraine leave nothing but

Ashes. he’s gotten pretty far with this goal. he doesn’t need nukes to destroy all of the infrastructure they have lots of drones which will torture and kill a lot of people.

[Calculating]

18. Either that or blow the dam

It's a big escalation either way, with blowing the damn being less bad than nukes obviously.

[C_U_L8R]

19. He'll destroy the very land he wants to steal

and the prevailing winds will blow the radiation back over his own troops, all the way back to Moscow. Maybe Putin isn't as smart as his pr claims he is.

[USALiberal]

21. No, that is not going to happen! Nt

[EndlessWire]

24. He's not evacuating his people.

They are cutting and running. Those civilians who are going are just going to become hostages. Collaborators, beware. Better go, too.

Putin isn't sending any message to NATO. NATO is currently sitting on its thumbs, but if he did, he would just be telling NATO, "Come and get me." And, we will, under those circumstances.

I think that Putin doesn't care about anyone. Not his troops, not his citizens. So, he could do that. I think that as the oblast reverts back to Ukrainian control, he will be very desperate, because next stop, Crimea. When Ukraine controls Crimea, it's over for Russia. Talk about loss of face.

The dam is of interest, if they have taken time to wire it. It fits right in with their current campaign of destruction of the utility infrastructure. But, I'm willing to bet that Ukraine has a contingency plan, and it doesn't include losing to Russia.

[wnylib]

45. Ukraine apparently expects the dam to go.

NPR has reported that Ukraine is warning its people near the dam to leave the area.

[ancianita]

26. Let one smidgen of that bomb waft over a NATO border and watch Moscow disappear.

[FailureToCommunicate]

27. Putin may not be thinking right. All the grain they want from there will be already

toasted and glowing...forever.

[IronLionZion]

28. He doesn't have much left to lose

he's fast becoming a pariah that the world will remember with disgust long after he's dead. He's obviously losing the war in Ukraine and losing support within Russia. He's bombed out populated civilian areas this whole time so that's nothing new.

He's pushing his limits to see what NATO will do about it.

The US has already moved heavy bombers into Europe just in case they are needed. An air/missile war could happen.

[RKP5637]

40. He's now losing on all fronts. He likely doesn't even care anymore, he just wants to go out

with a bang. He's likely full well realized there is no winning, and he will not be some type of great czar recreating the USSR. IMO a very bad situation lies ahead. And as you said, "... he's fast becoming a pariah that the world will remember with disgust long after he's dead."

[Calculating]

51. Hitler 2.0

That's exactly how he'll be remembered. I just hope he doesn't kill 90% of the world on the way out. Hitler with nukes, what a mess

[RKP5637]

64. Yeah, he really is. n/t

[Traildogbob]

29. Jeeebus lovin Tuckums

Is all ok with either. Kill all those Satan worshiping Ukraine’s.

[Evolve Dammit]

32. I weep for humanity. This is not some fucking game. And Ukraine DID NOTHING. Perhaps Putin is

your anti-Christ you fucking MAGAT fascists?

[yaesu]

33. Good thing the World banned the Neutron bomb decades ago. nt

[Crowman2009]

36. Or course their is the possibility of the aircraft/rocket delivering said nuke fails.

Then you'll have the Ukraine giving a John McClain Santa Claus machine gun message to Putin.

[NQAS]

37. Timing

If he does do this before the election, what would you all say would be the impact on our elections?

And what does he think might be the impact, and is this part of his calculations?

[texasfiddler]

38. I don't.

I think he will blow the dam and flood Kherson if he loses it.

[Botany]

39. He does that he will be dead in 5 minutes, the Russian black sea fleat will all be sunk, any ...

... Russian plane that goes airborne will be blown out of the sky, and any Russian soldier
will either have to surrender or be dead ASAP.

> 30% of Russians do not have indoor plumbing and yet Putin has how many billion dollar
homes?

[Mariana]

65. He does that he will be dead in 5 minutes...

No he won't. If he decides to give that order, he'll do it from safely inside his bunker.

[Girard442]

41. One thing the NATO countries could do is go full-MAD right out of the gate.

One nuke goes off anywhere and Moscow is gone.

Ugly as hell. It sucks that this might actually be the least bad strategy.

[sarisataka]

44. Least bad?

Do you think Russia will sit and watch our missiles coming in to turn Moscow into a self lighting glass paved parking lot?

We launch, they launch.

Game Over.

[Girard442]

50. MAD is how we got through the Cold War.

The idea was that limited nuclear war was flatly impossible. Believing that a nuclear exchange could somehow be contained could be most irresponsible and dangerous idea of all.

[Calculating]

53. No no no

That would immediately escalate to strategic nuclear war and we all die. The best thing to do is the current plan for that occasion. NATO forcibly removes Russia from Ukraine and drives them back to their border. That actually kinda gives them an excuse/out and saves their pride so they're less likely to nuke everything.

[Girard442]

54. So Putin uses one tac nuke and we hammer him with conventional forces.

He can't respond conventionally because seriously, after the Ukrainian debacle. Having broken the nuclear taboo, isn't the next logical step more nukes?

Richard Nixon, damn his hide, said it best: in a conflict between a rational person and an irrational person, the irrational person has the edge because the rational person will seek to avoid mutual disaster, but the irrational person won't.

(Not the exact quote. Sorry.)

[Calculating]

55. Not if we don't threaten Russia itself

In effect we'd be giving him an out. He goes home and gets to blame the us and NATO for meddling in the war.

[Warpy]

42. Not the kind of message he wants to send

but I think blowing that dam apart is definitely on the table, or trying to. Dams are even tougher to destroy than bridges, although they will be able to make it leak considerably while wrecking the hydropower generators.

NATO has already told him that there will be a swift response even to an ultra low yield tactical nuke on a battlefield. I'm sure his generals have reminded him what the EMP will do to their communications, bad already. And I have a sneaking suspicion that if he blows a screaming fit at those generals and insists on nuking a city, one of them will put a bullet into his head.

[Xipe Totec]

43. Pointless if he's going to flood it. nt

[Tomconroy]

52. Ukraine can't control what Putin does. Whatever he does

Ukraine will continue to fight and win the war.
No one actually seems to know what Putin has in the way of tactical nukes: how large, how lethal. Or even if they've been maintained so they actually work.
One thing is certain about this war: it usually pays off to underestimate the Russian military.

[bluestarone]

56. What needs to be done, (not sure who could do it)

Bomb Iranian site that builds the drones. STOP them completely! Whomever does it, DO NOT admit to it.

[Calculating]

62. Just send one of our b21 stealth bombers

No more Iranian drones

[moondust]

59. Maybe he's waiting on U.S. midterms

to decide on anything.

He may think that if his GQP pals "win" they will help him fight Ukraine. He may not understand that they would need a supermajority to override a veto.

[paleotn]

61. Probably not.

Far too much downside even for a gambler like Putin. Aside from the possibility of things spiraling out of control in a global nuclear holocaust....

- Russia would become a bigger pariah than they already are, further crippling an already crippled economy.

- Kherson is the gateway to Crimea, so depending on weather conditions, the weapon's yield and deployment (air or ground burst), Russian held Crimea could be heavily impacted by fallout.

- Even a low yield, tactical weapon is probably off the table given the fallout problem and the fact that they're just not very useful on the modern battlefield. I doubt we're going to see massed Ukrainian armor rolling across the steppe , a la Soviet armor pouring thru the Fulda Gap into West Germany. Modern combat forces are far more spread out. Ukrainians especially so given Russia's advantage in ballistic missiles and air power.

- Same with chemical weapons. Outside of hitting a psychological target well behind enemy lines like a civilian town or village in say Syria or Iraq (another shortcut to pariah status since this is Europe and not the Middle East - shouldn't be that way but it is), they're just not useful on a modern battlefield for for some of the same reasons as tactical nukes. One being the problem of the wind shifting and you gas your own guys. Particularly the ones with defective, Russian MOPP gear, if they even have MOPP gear.

[ecstatic]

71. This situation has really opened my eyes

I used to think that the US had top-notch military and intelligence capabilities. That's clearly not true. If we had the technology to take out p & his entourage, I believe we would have done so by now, as opposed to dumping money and watching in real time while p kills millions of people. It's pretty much hitler all over again with nothing being done to stop it.