There has been talk in the media about the possibility of Russia using so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons, and how the U.S. would respond if they did so. Tactical nukes are sometimes described as weapons whose destructive range is limited. Their use supposedly may not lead to an escalation into all-out nuclear war with “strategic” nuclear weapons. Scientific American described the “real world” difference between tactical and strategic nukes: “tactical  means an exceedingly large amount of explosive energy and strategic means even larger.”

A dose of reality: the Union of Concerned Scientists reports that “many Russian and U.S. tactical weapons have yields far greater than the bomb [the U.S.] dropped on [the Japanese city of] Hiroshima, which instantly killed more than 70,000 people” (emphasis in original). Bombs exist in the U.S. and Russian arsenals today that are up to six times more powerful than the ones the U.S dropped on Hiroshima and another Japanese city, Nagasaki, in World War 2. According to the web site Nuke Map, one 100-kiloton nuclear weapon dropped on New York City could lead to roughly 583,160 immediate fatalities.

Any nuclear weapon would inflict an enormous amount of immediate death. Any nuclear weapon would bring killing shockwaves, an enormous fireball, and lethal radiation poisoning among many who survived the initial devastation, over a much wider area. It would contaminate the air, and turn water and soil into toxic wastes.

Some journalists and political figures refer to tactical nukes as “battlefield” weapons, in the insane and deluded belief that the damage they cause would be limited, and that their use wouldn’t necessarily lead to an escalation to “strategic nukes.” Anyone who falls for that should think about this chilling and cold-blooded statement made in 2017 by John E. Hyten, who was then an Air Force general overseeing U.S. nuclear weapons as the chief of U.S. Strategic Command. When asked how the U.S. would respond if another country used tactical nukes, Hyten responded, “It’s not a tactical effect, and if somebody employs what is a nonstrategic or tactical nuclear weapon, the United States will respond strategically, not tactically, because they have now crossed a line, a line that has not been crossed since 1945.”

What could it mean if the U.S. and Russia begin exchanging nuclear weapons, as both Biden and Putin are threatening right now? Nina Tannenwald, an authority on nuclear deterrence at Brown University, told a reporter: “These are unbelievably destructive weapons. If we got into a nuclear war with strategic weapons, that would be essentially the end of civilization in both countries.”