Mediaboss Marketing

**UPDATED WITH ADDITIONAL FIVE QUESTIONS AT THE BOTTOM, MARCH 2, 2022**

By Samuel M. Hickey and Monica Montgomery

As the world watches Russias illegal invasion of Ukraine, nuclear issues and the risk of escalation are abuzz in the news and on social media. We have received myriad questions about the nuclear implications of this crisis and wanted to share answers to some of the most common questions.

We will update this page as new questions and information arise, and you can submit questions to be answered by tweeting at @nukes_of_hazard or via this short survey.

The risk of a nuclear war remains low at this moment. Right now, the direct fighting is limited to Russian and Ukrainian forces. Ukraine does not have nuclear capabilities, nor is it a NATO ally or part of the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

While Russia does possess a vast nuclear arsenal, it is highly unlikely to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has, however, made explicit threats of nuclear use in an attempt to deter Western nations from coming to the aid of Ukraine. Whats more, this conflict borders several NATO allies who benefit from the U.S. nuclear umbrella, providing an all too real reminder that, in the fog of war, an accident or miscalculation could escalate and draw nuclear powers into conflict with one another.

The risk of escalation that could lead to a nuclear war in Europe is real and cannot be understated. This moment shows that a war between Russia and NATO including the United States is not inconceivable, but a frighteningly real possibility. While this risk is still extremely low, it is not zero.

Yes. In his speech full of baseless claims and false pretexts for invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted that todays Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states with a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. He said, In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.

This threat is extremely provocative and concerning. It flies in the face of Russian statements going back to the Cold War and as recently as January 2022 that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Further, it demonstrates the myth that nuclear deterrence is an instrument of peace and stability and instead highlights how nuclear weapon states use their arsenals as a shield to carry out conventional aggression or proxy wars.

Three days after this speech, Putin put his nuclear forces in a special regime of combat duty. A great deal of uncertainty surrounds what exactly this posture entails as it is unprecedented, but experts speculate that it at least includes shifting the command and control structure into high alert. However, according to Russian nuclear weapons scholar Pavel Podvig, it is not something that suggests that Russia is preparing itself to strike first, though.

No, Ukraine has never actually possessed its own nuclear weapons arsenal. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Soviet strategic bombers and associated bombs and tactical nuclear weapons that were still under Moscows command and control were left on Ukraines territory. Ukraine did not have the ability to use the weapons nor the facilities to store and maintain them, but, given enough time, Ukraine likely could have reverse engineered the weapons, although at great expense.

Instead, Ukraine then used the Soviet nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip in negotiations for economic aid and security assurances that ultimately led to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum with Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom. In that agreement, Russia and the other signatories pledged to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, which Russia violated in 2014 and now again.

If Ukraine had retained the nuclear weapons, it would have paid a steep price, in terms of the economic and security aid and diplomatic support that Western nations have provided over the years. To say that Ukraine could be the country it is today but with nuclear weapons is false, but it is also true that Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine has done serious damage to the credibility of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Ukraine made the responsible and only rational decision to repatriate Soviet nuclear weapons for its own self-interest and collective security.

The danger is small. Chernobyl is inside of a large exclusion zone meaning the space is uninhabited and its distance from major population centers would mitigate the consequences of a second nuclear accident.

Still, there are two potential areas of concern.

The first is the shelling of the nuclear reactor that melted down back in 1986, the worst nuclear accident in history. However, in November 2016, the worlds largest movable metal structure was slid over Chernobyls nuclear power plant to contain further radiation leaks. It is reported that the containment structure is secure against tornadoes and covers gaps in the initial sarcophagus. The second is the disturbance and dispersion of radiation in the ground. After Russia occupied Chernobyl, higher radiation measurements were taken; likely due to Russian trucks and tanks kicking up radiation in the ground. However, the UNs nuclear watchdog (the IAEA) confirmed that higher radiation measurements do not pose any danger to the public. It is unlikely that Russia would intentionally target any reactors.

On Sunday, February 27, a referendum in Belarus an effective Russian dependency approved a new constitution that would remove current language guaranteeing its neutrality and non-nuclear status, and therefore allow Russia to station its nuclear weapons on Belarus territory.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said, if you (the West) transfer nuclear weapons to Poland or Lithuania, to our borders, then I will turn to Putin to return the nuclear weapons that I gave away without any conditions. Similar to Ukraine, Belarus inherited nuclear weapons following the breakup of the Soviet Union, but transferred all of them to Russia and codified its nuclear-free status under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

It remains to be seen whether Russian nuclear weapons will in fact be deployed to Belarus, particularly in light of the fact that NATO has indicated no plan to move any nuclear assets. Russia doing so would come with enormous implications for European security, as Russian nuclear forces in Belarus would not have a deterrent role that is already filled by strategic forces but would be there only to threaten Europe with destruction.

No. In the week leading up to Russias invasion of Ukraine, Putin said Ukraine aspires to acquire nuclear weapons and it is only a matter of time as Ukraine has laid the groundwork for this since the Soviet era and Western patrons may help it acquire these weapons to create yet another threat to Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov repeated these allegations on March 1.

All of these claims are absurd. This is simply the latest pretext in Putins web of conspiracy theories to excuse his illegal and unprovoked invasion. Ukraine does not possess nuclear weapons nor any other weapons of mass destruction, is not actively seeking them from allies, nor does it have the domestic technological means to develop nuclear weapons. Ukraine sealed off this pathway in the 1990s (see above). Ukrainian nuclear power facilities are subject to the full scope of IAEA safeguards, and there is no way Kyiv could so much as start down the pathway without the world knowing.

Talks are on hiatus.

In June 2021, Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin met in Geneva and released a joint statement on strategic stability, outlining a path forward for nuclear arms control and risk reduction. Several working groups were established that met over the following months to develop a baseline understanding and to facilitate dialogue on security concerns. The most recent round of talks convened in January 2022 to discuss Russias military buildup on the Ukrainian border and Russian proposals for security guarantees.

After Putins invasion of Ukraine, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman confirmed that, at this stage, I see no reason for a Strategic Stability Dialogue. A rupture in relations now, however, does not reduce the need for a dialogue on nuclear risks once tensions have decreased. In fact, Russias threats to withdraw from the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) and conduct nuclear strikes only heighten the need to determine explicit rules of the road ahead.

Putin is using his nuclear weapons as a shield to perpetrate a conventional invasion by keeping those who want to come to Ukraines aid at bay. Russias international isolation is a consequence of Putins reckless invasion of Ukraine, but eventually, the parties must come back to the table. Nuclear blackmail cannot be used to establish precedents like a sphere of influence, and the way to achieve sustainable guarantees is through hard-nosed diplomacy.

Yes. The United States currently maintains an estimated 100 tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons at six NATO air bases in Italy, Turkey, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, for use by U.S. and allied aircraft. The weapons are not armed or deployed on aircraft, but instead are kept in underground vaults and the codes to arm them remain in American hands.

The weapons are a part of the U.S. pledge to support the collective defense of allied NATO nations with its own armed forces and, critically, nuclear weapons. U.S. nuclear weapons have been deployed in Europe since the mid-1950s and reached an all-time peak of 7,300 during the height of Cold War tensions in 1971. Although these weapons have minimal effect on U.S. deterrence, they are seen as vital evidence of U.S. commitment to collective security by many allies.

Russian officials, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on March 1, have long criticized the United States deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe as a violation of the NPT. In the negotiations preceding the invasion of Ukraine in December 2021, Russia included the removal of U.S. deployed nuclear weapons in Europe on their list of proposed security guarantees, to which the United States responded that it was prepared to discuss this disagreement.

No. Ukraine is not part of NATO, so the United States is not treaty-bound to intervene militarily on Ukraines behalf and does not guarantee to use the U.S. nuclear deterrent to defend Ukraine. The United States does maintain positive security assurances with its NATO allies, in that it promises to come to the aid of one of them, even possibly with the use of nuclear weapons, if they are attacked.

With that in mind, U.S. nuclear deterrence was never on the line in Ukraine, so Putins invasion, though abhorrent and illegal, did not somehow crack or subvert the U.S. nuclear deterrent. Likewise, it is false to suggest that if the United States had more nuclear weapons, either in Europe or at home, then Putin would have been deterred from invading Ukraine. Both the United States and Russia currently have enough nuclear weapons to inflict catastrophic harm, so more nuclear weapons would be irrelevant to the United States ability to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Excerpt from:
Nuclear Issues in the Ukraine Crisis - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation