RUSSIA: Nuclear Weapons - Should We be Afraid?

This month, Russian President Vladimir Putin approved significant changes to Russia's longstanding nuclear doctrine. This has raised global concerns about potential escalation. With the world's largest nuclear arsenal, these developments have triggered alarm in Western nations. The key question on everyone's mind: Could Russia resort to using nuclear weapons in Ukraine as retaliation for President Biden's decision to allow Ukraine to employ long-range missiles on Russian territory?

This week, we delve deeply into this pressing issue. We’ll begin by examining the history and context of nuclear weapons and their use. Next, we’ll analyze Russia’s traditional nuclear doctrine alongside the recent changes. Finally, we’ll explore whether Putin might be desperate enough to resort to nuclear escalation and the potential global consequences of such a decision.

AMERICA AT THE FOREFRONT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS HISTORY

During World War II, the development of nuclear weapons was a ground-breaking and highly secretive effort, led by the United States through the Manhattan Project. This initiative, which began in 1939 and escalated during the early 1940s, brought together some of the world’s most brilliant scientists, including J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, and Richard Feynman. The project focused on exploiting nuclear fission, a process where the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts, releasing a vast amount of energy. The most suitable materials for this reaction were uranium-235 and plutonium-239, which required intricate processes of enrichment and synthesis to isolate and prepare.

To create a nuclear weapon, two main designs were developed. The first, a "gun-type" design, involved shooting one piece of fissile material into another to achieve a critical mass and sustain a nuclear chain reaction. This design was used in "Little Boy", the uranium bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The second, an "implosion" design, utilized explosives to compress a plutonium core into a supercritical state, triggering the chain reaction. This method was more complex but efficient and was used in "Fat Man", the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. These designs required advanced engineering and the establishment of massive industrial complexes, such as Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Hanford, Washington, to produce the necessary materials.

Testing played a crucial role in refining the weapons. The first successful detonation of a nuclear device, the Trinity test, occurred on July 16th, 1945, in the New Mexico desert. This test validated the implosion design and demonstrated the unprecedented destructive power of nuclear energy. The culmination of this process—developing fissile materials, designing mechanisms for initiating and sustaining a chain reaction, and testing the results—resulted in weapons that forever changed the nature of warfare. 

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 demonstrated their devastating impact and ushered in the nuclear age, profoundly influencing global military strategy and international relations.

USSR'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND DOCTRINE

The Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons program began in earnest during World War II but accelerated dramatically after the U.S. demonstrated the power of atomic bombs in Japan. Despite being an ally during the war, the Soviet Union was excluded from the Manhattan Project, prompting it to rely on espionage and indigenous scientific efforts to develop its nuclear arsenal. Soviet spies, such as Klaus Fuchs, provided critical intelligence on American research, enabling the USSR to make rapid progress. Under the leadership of physicist Igor Kurchatov and political oversight from Lavrentiy Beria, the Soviets achieved their first successful atomic bomb test, RDS-1 or "Joe-1," on August 29, 1949, at the Semipalatinsk Test Site in Kazakhstan, just four years after the U.S. tested its first bomb.

Following this achievement, the Soviet Union focused on advancing its nuclear capabilities, transitioning from fission bombs to more powerful thermonuclear weapons. In 1953, the Soviets tested their first hydrogen bomb, RDS-6, which represented a significant leap in destructive power. By 1961, they tested the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated, yielding 50 megatons—approximately 3,300 times the energy of the Hiroshima bomb. 

The development of delivery systems, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), further enhanced the USSR’s nuclear capability, ensuring it could retaliate against any potential attack. This arms race with the United States fueled Cold War tensions, with both sides amassing enormous stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

The Soviet Union's nuclear doctrine was heavily influenced by the principle of deterrence, specifically the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD). This doctrine emphasized the need to maintain a credible second-strike capability, ensuring that any nuclear attack against the USSR would result in catastrophic retaliation against the aggressor. The Soviets also integrated nuclear weapons into their broader military strategy, planning for their use in both strategic and tactical roles. 

While the Soviet leadership recognized the destructive potential of nuclear war, their doctrine supported the belief that nuclear weapons were essential for maintaining geopolitical influence and deterring Western aggression. Despite participating in arms control agreements like the Partial Test Ban Treaty (1963) and the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in the 1970s, the Soviet Union maintained a robust nuclear arsenal throughout its existence, ensuring parity with the United States until the Cold War’s end.

THE NEW CHANGES TO RUSSIA'S NUCLEAR DOCTRINE

On November 19th, Vladimir Putin approved significant changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, further lowering the threshold for deploying nuclear weapons. The revisions permit Russia to use atomic weapons if it perceives a threat to itself or Belarus, even from non-nuclear nations allied with nuclear powers. In effect, this doctrine allows Russia to respond to major threats—whether nuclear or conventional—if it views the aggression as part of a coordinated effort with a nuclear-armed ally. For example, an attack from Ukraine, backed by the United States, could be seen as a joint action. This interpretation extends to territories Russia claims as its own, such as the occupied regions of Donbas and Crimea. Ukraine’s activities in areas like Kursk only heighten these tensions and amplify the risk of escalation.

Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began on February 24, 2022, Putin has repeatedly invoked nuclear threats, raising global concerns about the possibility of a broader conflict. The Kremlin has warned that if the U.S. enables Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory using Western weapons, Russia will consider the U.S. and NATO direct participants in the war. These warnings underline Moscow’s strategy of leveraging nuclear rhetoric to deter Western intervention while justifying its aggressive posture on the battlefield.

This marks a dangerous evolution in Russia’s military doctrine, where nuclear threats are increasingly wielded as tools of coercion and intimidation. By broadening what it considers a threat and eroding the distinction between conventional and nuclear responses, Russia risks undermining regional and global stability. While these recent updates are alarming, they are not unprecedented. In 2020, Putin similarly adjusted the nuclear doctrine, stating that nuclear weapons would only be used if the “very existence of the state” was threatened. Although vague, this condition maintained a higher threshold than today’s doctrine, which represents the most permissive stance on nuclear use in Russia’s history.

WILL PUTIN USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN UKRAINE?

As news of the November 19 updates to Russia's nuclear doctrine emerged, media outlets swiftly focused on a critical question: Could Putin resort to nuclear weapons in response to Ukraine's use of ATACMS and other long-range weapons?

The speculation was fueled by Ukraine’s immediate and decisive action following its approval to deploy the long-range missiles. The Ukrainian military launched targeted strikes deep into Berdyansk and surrounding areas, hitting key Russian military infrastructure. These strikes disrupted logistical hubs, destroyed armament supplies, and delivered a strategic blow to Russia’s war effort. Notably, reports claim Ukraine even managed to strike a command post linked to Putin, adding further intensity to an already volatile situation.

It’s important to distinguish between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons when assessing this threat. Strategic nuclear weapons are large-scale, ranging from 100 kilotons to one megaton, capable of causing massive destruction over vast areas. In contrast, tactical nuclear weapons are smaller—typically up to 50 kilotons—and designed for localized, surgical use on the battlefield. If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, it is more likely to be a tactical weapon due to its smaller scale and perceived suitability for the conflict.

The West’s potential response to a Russian nuclear strike remains a significant unknown. The immediate consequences would be catastrophic: countless civilian casualties, long-term environmental devastation in the affected area, and radioactive fallout that could spread across Ukraine, Europe, and even parts of Russia, depending on wind patterns. However, the scale of Western retaliation might depend on the size and impact of the nuclear weapon used. If a poorly maintained or smaller tactical device caused relatively localized damage, the response might be more restrained. Still, any use of nuclear weapons would shatter global norms, and it’s unlikely such an act would go unanswered by the international community.

I don’t believe Putin is fully prepared to face the consequences of launching a nuclear strike. While the West’s precise response remains uncertain, one thing is clear: it must act decisively. The United States, in particular, would have no choice but to respond, as failing to do so would risk appearing weak and further eroding its global leadership. Meanwhile, China is observing the situation intently. If America permits Putin to act with impunity, Xi Jinping will almost certainly feel emboldened to pursue his ambitions in Taiwan. 

Trump will need to play his cards strategically. Even if his focus is on an isolationist American agenda, he cannot afford to overlook the immense stakes of allowing Russia to prevail in Ukraine. However, his past actions suggest a lack of understanding regarding Ukraine's complex dynamics. The U.S. must recognize that this "European" conflict is unlikely to remain confined to the region—it could have significant repercussions for America sooner rather than later.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the implications of Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine for the West remain complex and uncertain. In my view, much of this rhetoric is scare-mongering, a calculated effort by Vladimir Putin to project strength and maintain leverage on the global stage—possibly in anticipation of a more favorable geopolitical climate, such as a potential return of President Trump to power. While the prospect of nuclear war is alarming, I believe ordinary people should not be overly concerned about its immediate likelihood. However, this does not mean the West is ignoring the risks or downplaying the gravity of Russia’s nuclear posture. On the contrary, Western nations remain vigilant, closely monitoring Russia’s actions and preparing contingencies for any potential escalation.

It’s also important to consider Putin’s personal calculus and the internal ramifications of such a drastic decision. Launching a nuclear strike, even a limited one, would almost certainly alienate key allies, provoke massive international retaliation, and destabilize his regime domestically. History has shown that leaders who take extreme measures often face consequences at home, as exemplified by the downfall of Nicolae Ceaușescu in Romania. Putin is unlikely to be immune to similar risks; starting a nuclear conflict could lead to his assassination, a palace coup, or a rapid erosion of his authority. Even if his end comes more quietly—such as dying in his sleep—his legacy would be forever tainted by the devastation he unleashed.

Ultimately, while Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling is concerning, it appears more as a strategy of coercion and intimidation rather than a genuine intent to trigger global catastrophe. That said, the unpredictable nature of war and the high stakes involved demand constant vigilance. The West cannot afford to disregard the possibility, however remote, that Russia might act irrationally or impulsively in desperation. For now, the focus must remain on maintaining a united front, strengthening deterrence, and continuing efforts to de-escalate tensions through diplomacy, however challenging that may be.

References:

• CNN - Putin fine-tunes Russia’s nuclear doctrine after Biden’s arms decision on Ukraine, in clear signal to West
• Reuters - Putin issues warning to United States with new nuclear doctrine
• CBS News -  Putin just approved a new nuclear weapons doctrine for Russia. Here's what it means.
• Atomic Heritage Foundation - Soviet Atomic Program – 1946