{"id":47705,"date":"2022-03-03T09:23:47","date_gmt":"2022-03-03T09:23:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/qatar-news.org\/qatarnewsEn\/?p=47705"},"modified":"2022-03-03T09:23:47","modified_gmt":"2022-03-03T09:23:47","slug":"how-realistic-is-vladimir-putins-nuclear-threat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/qatar-news.org\/qatarnewsEn\/?p=47705","title":{"rendered":"How realistic is Vladimir Putin\u2019s nuclear threat?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Arguably frustrated by the lack of progress in his war on Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin has put Russia\u2019s deterrent weapons \u2013 including its nuclear arms \u2013 on alert<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Since this provocation, the question<\/a> has become all the more critical as to how many nuclear weapons Russia possesses and whether these could be indeed a realistic option for Putin.<\/p>\n

\u201cPutin is using his nuclear arsenal in this way because it is a tool he has, one that is mysterious and utterly terrifying,\u201d Dakota S Rudesill, associate professor at Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University, told Al Jazeera.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the resistance the Russians have met in Ukraine<\/a> so far has played a pivotal role in the decision, he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cPutin is reaching for it at this point because the war is probably not going as well as he anticipated.<\/a> He wants to change the game and regain the initiative, wants his adversaries to be off-balance and frightened, wondering how he might escalate next and against whom,\u201d Rudesill added.<\/p>\n

\"INTERACTIVE-
(Al Jazeera)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

However, one can also argue that Putin\u2019s announcement was somewhat of a strategic mistake, said Alexander Lanoszka, assistant professor at the department of political science at the University of Waterloo.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt seemed that it was an inevitable tactic played too early. For Putin, this might be problematic because future threats might not be believed. The United States, NATO, and the EU do not appear to be too fazed by it because we have observed no changes in the US, French, or British nuclear operations,\u201d Lanoszka said.<\/p>\n

Vast arsenal<\/h2>\n

Besides nuclear weapons, the Russian deterrent includes a massive arsenal of ballistic missiles with conventional warheads, modern cruise and short-range missiles, and hypersonic weapons.<\/p>\n

However, it is particularly its nuclear capacity<\/a> that makes Russia a force to be reckoned with.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Russian nuclear arsenal is vast insofar as estimates of it hold that it has 14,000 nuclear weapons in storage. That said, the majority of these weapons are not immediately usable. Closer to reality, Russia has over 2,400 strategic nuclear weapons, with the majority of them tied to the intercontinental ballistic missile force,\u201d Lanoszka told Al Jazeera.<\/p>\n

\u201cRussia has an estimated 1,600 deployed tactical nuclear weapons\u2026 The plurality of these tactical weapons would be delivered from the sea, but many others would be delivered by the air or even by ground.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"INTERACTIVE<\/p>\n

Its stockpile makes Russia the largest nuclear power in the world, closely followed by the United States. The two together possess about 93 percent of all nuclear weapons globally.<\/p>\n

The US possesses 3,750 active and inactive nuclear warheads with an estimated 150 at various sites in Europe.<\/p>\n

The United Kingdom has a sea-based deterrent that has expanded to about 225 nuclear warheads, about half of which are operationally available on four submarines.<\/p>\n

At any given moment, one-third or so are on active deployment. France has a nuclear stockpile of about 300 nuclear weapons, said Lanoszka.<\/p>\n

This discrepancy in numbers is the reason why observers are pointing to gaps in NATO\u2019s deterrent posture.<\/p>\n

The sheer number of nuclear warheads available globally becomes even more terrifying when looking at how swiftly they can be launched.<\/p>\n

\u201cAccording to public sources, US intercontinental ballistic missiles [ICBMs] can fire within one to five minutes of an order by the president, and US submarine ballistic missiles [SLBM] can fire within about 15 minutes. The Russian system may have similar responsiveness,\u201d said Rudesill.<\/p>\n

However, there has been speculation on Russia\u2019s nuclear modus operandi.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor many decades, there has been debate in the West about whether the Soviet Union built a system that would allow for the automated launch of nuclear weapons in the event that the Soviet leadership was decapitated,\u201d Rudesill said.<\/p>\n

\u2018Threat remains low\u2019<\/h2>\n

Nonetheless, despite Putin\u2019s rhetoric, a nuclear war between Russia and NATO remains unlikely, Lanoszka argued.<\/p>\n

\u201cKeep in mind that Putin\u2019s recent announcement most relates to staffing at various nuclear command and control centres. It does not yet appear that strategic and nonstrategic forces have changed their posture. The risk of nuclear weapons use is obviously elevated relative to normal circumstances, but the threat remains low for now.\u201d<\/p>\n