1. and Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Palestine, Somalia, Sudan, Vietnam, Cambodia…

    2. ​@Sleepy Joe Sorry Russian trolls are the delusional ones. They actually think they have a chance to win this thing, 🤣🤣🤣

  1. It has to have a “physical” response or it would not only set a precedent for others but also encourage putin to continue – because Ukraine wouldnt back down. And they shouldnt.

    1. Really when America dropped atomic bomb what happened, used depleted uranium in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, mother’s are giving birth to babies with deformity and complication

    1. Russia and NATO both has no daring for AtomBomb attack…. Hahahaha
      #RussiaUkraineWar #RussiaUkraineConflict #Russia #RussiaIsLosing #UkraineWar #Ukraine️ #EuropeanUnion #America #NewYorkTimes #PUTIN #ZelenskyyUk #England #germany #Canada #Morning #evening #Night

    1. Really? Because that’s pretty much human default mode for all of history. The weapons may get bigger but our behavior has stayed pretty consistent throughout all of history and across all cultures.

  2. There is no suc thing as a tactical nuke ALL nukes leave fallout and fallout does not necessarily stay i one place …the wind takes it where it wants ANY use of nukes is STUPID

    1. There is a huge difference between all out nuclear war (Strategic nukes) and small scale tactical nuke.

      You’re comparing the fallout of an area less than 5km to a strategic one that can poison a whole continent.

    2. Please inform the Pentagon that there is “no suc thing as a tactical nuke” in anyone’s inventory. I would be interested in what they say.

    3. There is in fact a difference . Tactical being , that a 20 sq mile area is destroyed and rendered inhabitable after an attack , as opposed to an entire Continent being vaporized .

  3. the weird part for me is the implication that there might also be no response to them using nukes whatsoever.

    1. Napoleon Macron in France has already stated that he would not respond to a nuclear attack on Ukraine or the Eastern region of Europe.
      This explains why Macron is so friendly with Putin and why so many French companies are still doing business in Russia.

    2. What implication?
      To Quote: “NATO official: Russian nuke strike may trigger “physical response””
      The interview itself was with a retired US army major.

    1. In Russia they say _”Why do we need a world where there will be no Russia”_ by Russia they mean, first of all, Putin’s regime.

  4. a nuke is a nuke. tactical or strategic does not matter. what matters is the innocent lives potentially lost due to these devices.

    1. Yes does matters. A 60 Megaton nuke over a capital city is quite different than a nuclear artillery shell of 5 kiloton over enemy forces.

  5. How crazy the world has become in such a short time. Now we are seriously talking about nuclear war. If you had done that one year ago, everybody would have laughed.
    No one is laughing now

  6. I find it so odd that these experts are saying what may happen. Hello if they not thought of it yet you just gave them the idea. Why is this information not kept quiet to avoid that?

  7. nato would respond conventionally which means targeting russian weapons and troops which could then likely cause pootin to launch icbms at some point then everyone launches and thats the end 😄

  8. Couple years ago the government and the news talking about nuclear war and ufos seemed like that would never happen . Now look them doing it and nobody cares 😂😂 crazy

  9. This provides a frightening, yet realistic scenario for how a tactical nuke could be used and why Putin might consider them a viable ‘tool’.
    What’s missing here (and understandably so) is speculation about how NATO would respond. I did not hear this mentioned. Therefore, the title should not have mentioned NATO’s response.
    It seems to me that if the nuke is used to create a barrier between Ukrainian and Russian forces, placed just west of Russia’s annexed territories, the response would have to be to use air power and advanced weapons to ‘jump’ that barrier and destroy Russian personnel and assets supposedly protected by the nuclear barrier

    1. And that’s where things could begin to start getting out of hand. Another point is, if Russia did happen to win this war, and annexed Ukraine, that land and maybe other surrounding areas due to fall out would be totally useless to them. So what do they really have to gain in the long run other than saving pootler’s Pride? However there’s no telling what madvlad might do.

  10. Territories, which are under shelling and bombs of a native country where children and civilians are dying and suffering for years, could not remain under control and within the borders of the native country any more. If you analyze and take into account the situation in the ex-Yugoslavia regions, as well as many others all around the world , you’ll see that secession and/or split indeed, had occurred. Why would Ukraine be an exception ? Just because of the USA, UK, EU interests in it ?

    1. They are not a territory of Russia, it’s in a whole complete another country just because they happen to be on the same continent doesn’t mean Russia owns them you people make me sick

    2. @Sister mary Frances I take it that if there are any regions of the Russian Federation proper that seek to separate from it, you will support them? Or is it that Russia is so benevolent, so beneficial that no ethnic minorities could ever want to leave (unless bribed to do so by the CIA/MI6/Mossad?).

  11. The way that dude just took off in 0.4 seconds from being asked the question just goes to show he’s rehearsed the hell out of it

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.