Putin says Moscow to station nuclear weapons in Belarus, first time since 1990s

[ImNotGod]

Source: Reuters

March 25 (Reuters) - Russia will station tactical nuclear weapons in neighbouring Belarus, President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday, marking the first time since the mid-1990s that Moscow will have based such arms outside the country.

Putin made the announcement at a time of growing tensions with the West over the Ukraine war and as some Russian commentators speculate about possible nuclear strikes.

Putin told state television that Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko had long raised the issue of stationing tactical nuclear weapons in his country, which borders NATO member Poland.

Putin did not specify when the weapons would be transferred to Belarus. "Tactical" nuclear weapons refer to those used for specific gains in the battlefield.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-moscow-has-deal-with-belarus-station-nuclear-weapons-there-tass-2023-03-25/

[ProudMNDemocrat]

1. BASTARD!!!!!

Such henious evil.

[ancianita]

2. Probably dirty bombs made from their outdated missiles' warheads.

[MiniMe]

3. Is that the real Putin or one of his doppelgngers?

[tornado34jh]

4. You knew this was going to happen

Personally, I don't think any country should have nuclear weapons, but I mean if Belarus is going to get nuclear weapons, what's the point of Ukraine not getting them? You basically are opening a Pandora's box. Now I am sure Poland, the Baltic states, and others are going to want that as well. By that logic, since the Budapest Memorandum is useless now, Ukraine should now be allowed to have nuclear weapons because the whole point of it was to guarantee the security of Ukraine by having it get rid of nuclear weapons, which at the time had the world's 3rd largest nuclear weapons stockpile, by also becoming part of the NPT.

[Delphinus]

37. I hear

What you are saying.

[paleotn]

39. NATO allies already have nukes. Ours and Britain's.

Response in kind is part of the deal.

[tornado34jh]

41. Doesn't France also have nuclear weapons?

I thought I read somewhere that they do. Maybe I am wrong.

[ancianita]

42. Yes, world's 4th largest nuclear stockpile deliverable by submarine & air launched cruise missiles

[paleotn]

46. Yes, but there's the question of reliability.

Of France itself, not of France's nukes. Those work just fine. Paris? Not so much sometimes.

On edit, I'm reminded of LBJ's comment when France pulled out of NATO in 1966 and de Gaulle ordered all American service personnel out of France....paraphrased..."does that include those in the cemeteries?"



https://fr.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulates/paris/sections-offices/abmc/

[tornado34jh]

47. Well, France is a definitely an enigma

Even when I visited there in 2010 and 2011, they were, shall I say, an interesting bunch. Even now, they can't figure out what they want to be. However, I do think France is very vulnerable to populism. France is a big country, and there are regional differences, particularly in the southern regions, including those bordering Spain, the central eastern parts, where Alemannic German is spoken there, and the western parts near the coast of Brittany. France throughout its history has been one of sometimes very dynamic changes.

[pwb]

5. Russia nukes are like wet matches.

Fuck your weapons little guy.

[friend of a friend]

9. Russia has 1,900 tactical nuclear weapons, the US has 200.

The US yields are .3 to 170 kilotons and the Russians are 10 to 100 kilotons. The 2 we dropped on Japan were 15 and 21 kilotons. And if those are used, the losing country will use its strategic nuclear weapons.

[pwb]

11. 200 eh?

Come on.

[friend of a friend]

13. Union of Concerned Scientists

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation says 100 in Europe.

[paleotn]

33. You're assuming a tactical exchange wouldn't go strategic.

Nuclear powers have fought each other by proxy since Korea, yet no one has ever used tactical nukes for exactly that reason. If we ever got to the point where Russia's higher number of tactical nukes meant anything, we've already crossed the strategic threshold. The damage caused by even a small fraction of Russia's 1,900 +/ - would inevitably lead to a strategic exchange, so your point is meaningless.

[friend of a friend]

45. Of course it would. I'm just not sure that Putin wouldn't use them in Ukraine.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

28. That's not surprising

Actually, the fact that we still have 200 left around is surprising. US nuclear doctrine eliminated tactical nukes a long time ago. Conventional precision guided munitions took over their role. Our doctrine is entirely based around our strategic nuclear weapons now.

[BidenRocks]

34. MAD

What part of this don't people understand?
Overthrow those who will kill you!
Whoopie! We're all gonna die!
I am thinking of Daisy.
1955 was a good year to be born.
I just want to die happy.

[paleotn]

36. Simply because tactical use leads inexorably to a strategic exchange.

No one is willing take the damage of a serious tactical exchange without going strategic.

[C Moon]

43. Putin sez. That guy is a fucking murderer. Who the fuck cares what he has.

Most of the civilized world hates the mother fucker.

[Model35mech]

15. Unfortunately bravado isn't actually a substitute for reality.

As we learned before the worst thing defending nations can do is underestimate their aggressor.

I told my partner we'd be at this point by late August, it seems to be coming sooner.

[Lancero]

18. And as we've seen for more than a year, the worst thing a agressor nation can do...

Is overestimate themselves.

Russia is now to the point where they're having to start towing old T-54/55's out of whatever scrap pile they were buried in. Given the 'quality' we've seen of Russias finest to this point, I'd be willing to bet that North Korea has more usable nuclear weapons in their stockpile.

[Model35mech]

19. Yes, agressors must have their heads in reality as well.

We're talking about very different levels of weapons to be used in very different scenarios.

One of the things that makes tactical nukes more likely to be used IS ACTUALLY THE VERY CRAPPY CONDITION of Russia's ground forces.

[Lancero]

21. So, every other aspect of their military is overestimated...

But Russia is totally telling the truth in regards to their nuclear capabilities? It's immune to the corruption that has infected every other aspect of their military?

It's not just more copium pushed by the Russian media to try and hold on to the "Russia Stronk!" meme?

Every other aspect of their military has been shown to be a paper tiger. Every prior 'fear' of their military has been shown to be entirely overblown. I know this is a radical idea - But maybe, just maybe, we're overestimating their nuclear capabilities too.

[Model35mech]

22. Well now you've passed into the world of BS I never said

So since you can't be real, I wish you a nice day

And hope to read you under better circumstances rather later.

[Igel]

32. A few points.

1. It's my thought. On the other hand, at some point you'd think that the top of the hierarchy might care about truth.

Most of the Russian Army's problems have not been functionality. It's been training, cooperation, chain of command, logistics, and corruption.

Kalibr missiles hit their targets. Hypersonic? Fear!

As my Russian ling prof said in the very early '90s, the problem with Russia isn't that it's not a great country. It's that it's populated by
Russians." I found that offensive and said nothing. I went to office hours--his desk was in the back and to get to it you walked by bookcases crammed with books and papers, in a 2.5 ft wide path--because the non-bookcase area was 4-5" high with papers and books.

Oddly, used to Kamkin bookstore, it struck me as not that horrible. (And, later, my inlaws. This, in fact, should have scared me.) Later I found out his *first* office was impassible. Filled to the gills.

The question is simple. Are the top officials, those in charge of nuclear capablities, as adept at military crap as those lower down? If so, yeah, "Russha Stronk!" If they're better ... screw KY, make sure you have your KI.

That's the wager. Because it *is* a wager.

We don't know their capabilities. Our leaders don't know theirs.

The claim is *they* don't know theirs. How confident are we that *our* leaders know *theirs*?

[Bayard]

6. Not good.

[Evolve Dammit]

8. Agree. None of this has been good since he invaded a sovereign country with no cause to do so.

[paleotn]

38. Don't buy his bravado. It's meaningless.

Our Ohio class boomers make it so. That's the thing about nukes. They're useful only as the ultimate insurance policy against attack and little else. And last I checked, NATO had no plans to roll thru Belarus on the way to Moscow, so who cares where he puts them. He could deploy them inside his own ass for all I care. Puty knows very well that if he did get hinky, he and his buds would be some of the first to die in a flash of light, heat and gamma radiation.

[News Junkie]

7. Belarus is a small country on their doorstep

Hard to see any tactical advantage?

[friend of a friend]

10. Just easier to hit Northwestern Ukraine.

[Model35mech]

14. Yes. Kyiv, Lviv, Lutsk all the important resupply routes from the west

It's about to get very ugly if he does this. Lukashenko is an idiot to allow this.

Biden came across as very wary of Russia's nukes early on. He and the US are sure to be tested again.
Now is the time to put troops and NATO missles on our side of the big red line that can't be crossed

Needless to say, Poland, Slovakia, Romania and the Baltic States are also needing re-enforcement.

[friend of a friend]

16. The US has 100 tactical nukes in Europe, but they need to be moved closer to Russia.

[Model35mech]

17. Yes. And we need to move missile cruisers and subs into theater defense positions.

The need for having Boomers in place in range just became something other than a talking point.

I'd say make the move to DEFCON 3 as a show of resolve. Nothing is committed at that point, but it is a serious reaction to a grave threat.

[Red Mountain]

24. Why?

What's the advantage?

[Red Mountain]

27. Which is to say.....

they're air dropped.

Moving 'closer' makes them more vulnerable.

[paleotn]

40. No point really.

And why poke the bear when his rhetoric and actions are meaningless? That's just playing into his game. He already knows that any exchange of tactical weapons will inevitably lead to his death and the death everyone around him.

[friend of a friend]

12. Tactical nuclear weapons are more than "those used for specific gains in the battlefield"."

Russia has 1,900 and some with a 100 kiloton yield, and many thousands of civilians killed if exploded over Kyiv.

[Red Mountain]

26. Sure......and one of our bigger ones would do far more damage to a Russian city

Tactical (battlefield) nukes aren't terribly useful.

Sure, they inspire fear but it takes an awful lot of them to defeat a dug in enemy. Not saying it wouldn't suck to be under one....but not some sort of wonder weapon. The effects by yield are pretty well studied and shorter range than you would think.

If you're going to use one against a city well, then, expect a response. Since we don't have a lot of what would be described as 'tactical' nukes then we'd probably have to use one classified as 'strategic'. Our apologies.

Russian and US stockpiles are similar in number though apparently we have a lot more of the 'strategic' sizes than the Russians do. And vice versa with regard to their 'tactical' advantage.

At least that's how I read it.

I will say that I'd much rather rely on American weapons systems given what we've seen of Russian performance in Ukraine.

Hard to say how much of what they say they have in storage would actually work.

Probably still enough to end the world as we know it.

[friend of a friend]

44. If Russia had a sane president, I wouldn't be worried.

[FailureToCommunicate]

20. "There is nothing unusual here either: the United States has been doing this for decades...

"There is nothing unusual here either: firstly, the United States has been doing this for decades. They have long deployed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of their allied countries," Putin said.

"We agreed that we will do the same - without violating our obligations, I emphasize, without violating our international obligations on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons."

Putin did not specify when the weapons would be transferred to Belarus.

Russia will have completed the construction of a storage facility for tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus by July 1.

"We are not handing over (the weapons). And the U.S. does not hand (them) over to its allies. We're basically doing the same thing they've been doing for a decade," Putin said.

[BComplex]

23. So Lukashenko agreed to possibly having Belarus blown off the map

if putin decides to use nukes stationed there?

He's pretty stupid.

[LudwigPastorius]

29. He probably has no choice.

Putin would have him taken out if he doesn't toe the Kremlin line.

Belarus will be an official Russian "union state" in a couple of years. (probably much sooner than 2030)

https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-plans-to-take-over-belarus-by-2030-leaked-document-2023-2

https://news.yahoo.com/russia-belarus-strategy-document-230035184.html

[OnlinePoker]

25. Putin false flag operation going to happen

Blow up a nuke (even if it's just the conventional explosive to spread radiation in a small area) and blame Ukraine for it.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

30. Kick

[Javaman]

31. I'm sure his puppet is delighted about this nt

[Initech]

35. The only place I want one of those bombs shoved...

Well... I probably shouldn't finish that sentence, but you see where I'm going with it!