"Whats the difference between Tactical and Strategic Nuclear Weapons"

A friend asked me this question last night during discussions on how (highly unlikely), but of course, potentially, they could be used in the context of a major escalation in Ukraine, so I'm going to try and answer it here.

Given current European and Middle Eastern tensions, the term "tactical nuclear weapon" often surfaces, particularly in discussions involving Russia's military strategy / doctrine.

Tactical nuclear weapons, also known as battlefield or non-strategic nuclear weapons, are designed for use on or near the battlefield. Unlike strategic nuclear weapons, which are intended for large-scale devastation aimed at crippling an enemy's military, economic, or political infrastructure, or indeed completely vaporising their cities, tactical nukes target military units, facilities, or specific tactical objectives or even smaller towns or cities.

These weapons have exceptionally powerful explosive yields ranging from a fraction of a kiloton to about 50 kilotons. For context, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II were around 15 and 20 kilotons, respectively, and we know how devastating these attacks were.

Interestingly and surprisingly, they can be delivered via various means, including short-range ballistic missiles (like the Iskander we see used so often in Ukraine), and can even be. Fored suprisingly from artillery as shells, or they can be bombs dropped from aircraft, or even used as naval mines.

Tactical nukes are intended to provide a decisive advantage in a battlefield scenario, potentially turning the tide against an enemy's conventional forces without escalating to full-scale nuclear war. They might target troop concentrations, command centers, or key logistical points.

While less powerful than strategic nukes, the impact of tactical nuclear weapons can still be catastrophic. The immediate effects include blast, heat, and radiation. However, their use could lead to significant radioactive fallout, depending on the altitude of detonation and local weather conditions (a ground burst would maximize fallout), whereas an air burst might minimize it but still cause significant destruction through blast and thermal effects, if used in the Ukrainiam theatre they would almost certainly have a significantly negative impact on at least Eastern Europe and further afield, again, depending on weather conditions.

Russia is "estimated" (no one really knows) to have around 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons. This number reflects Russia's strategic doctrine, which has historically relied more heavily on nuclear deterrence due to Soviet thinking that NATO could potentially field a larger conventional army to attack it.

Regarding whether Russia would ever use these weapons? Again that's a question very few people can answer, but Russia's military doctrine does indeed include the possibility of using nuclear weapons in response to "significant threats to its statehood", which could theoretically include a conventional military threat if it's deemed existential. The recent deployment of these weapons in Belarus, for instance, is, in my view, an obvious and clear message to NATO and its proxy Ukraine, aiming to deter further escalation, but given the recent incursion by Ukraine into Russia, it seems NATO obviously still feels it can push Moscow further.

Russias' massive strike on Ukraines energy infrastructure yesterday again demonstrates Russias ability, at will to deliver pin pount strikes anywhere in Ukraine, and of course, if necessary into Europe. This, in my view, was also a message to NATO

Let's hope and pray that the geniuses in the EU, NATO, and Washington received it.

Follow me @irishmaninrussia