The topic of the use of tactical nuclear weapons in international conflicts remains one of the most complex and unpredictable in modern politics. The use of such weapons is not limited to tactical or local tasks, but is associated with global risks, geopolitical balances and moral dilemmas. Military strategists and political analysts are constantly assessing possible scenarios in which nuclear weapons could be involved, taking into account the historical experience of using atomic bombs in World War II and the lessons of the Cold War.
Political analyst and economist Oleksiy Kushch explains that the issue of the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the United States in the event of a conflict with Iran is complex and multi-layered. This is not about the direct use of nuclear weapons in the existing military situation, but a possible scenario that will arise only if conventional means do not allow achieving the set goals and the situation gets out of control. At the same time, the need to end the war is critical for the United States, and Iran’s actions can cause significant damage to the Middle East region and create risks of a global crisis.
Alexey Kushch points out that in the event of unsuccessful limited ground operations, the losses could be large, and Iran could spread the conflict to neighboring Iraq, try to destabilize Jordan, or use the so-called “dirty bomb” to attack Israel. Under such circumstances, the United States finds itself faced with a choice: to maintain a huge group in the Middle East and risk thousands of casualties, or to resort to the use of nuclear weapons.
He draws a parallel with the US decision during the war with Japan, when the American command was faced with a choice between a grueling assault on the Japanese islands and the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which, according to the expert, also served as a signal to another major power of the time.
The expert emphasizes that the use of nuclear weapons in the modern conflict is not aimed at solving local problems in the war with Iran. Nuclear weapons are designed to intimidate the enemy and undermine his will to resist, and not for a precise strike on specific targets. Strategic nuclear weapons are designed to completely destroy the enemy and the mechanism of global panic, and not to achieve specific tactical goals.
Kushch also emphasizes that the risk of using nuclear weapons arises when a conventional strategy is associated with large losses, and the state that has them has no opportunity to retreat. Under such conditions, any nuclear state faces a dilemma when the use of a nuclear arsenal becomes a way to avoid catastrophic losses.
The analyst notes that during the Korean War, the United States considered the possibility of using nuclear weapons, although there were no real goals for this, it was prudence that saved them from using them at that time.
Alexei Kushch also draws attention to geopolitical aspects. According to him, if nuclear weapons become part of the military paradigm in the Middle East, their use could simultaneously serve as a signal to other nuclear powers, such as the Russian Federation, China, and North Korea, in the context of regional escalations and complex international relationships. He emphasizes that such scenarios should be considered comprehensively, not linearly, since nuclear weapons always function as an instrument of fear and global pressure, and not as a simple military means.
“The use of tactical nuclear weapons by the US was considered possible during the Korean War, although there were no “real goals” there either. Thank God, then it was wise enough not to use them and end the war.The risk of using nuclear weapons also arises when a nuclear state “something went wrong” and the conventional strategy is associated with high losses, and “there is nowhere to retreat,” – the expert believes.
Therefore, according to Oleksiy Kushch, the probability of using tactical nuclear weapons in a conflict with Iran will be determined not only by military circumstances, but also by geopolitical ones. risks, loss assessment, and strategic necessity. Historical lessons, including the war with Japan and the Korean War, demonstrate that the decision to use nuclear weapons is always accompanied by complex moral and political dilemmas and requires extreme judgment.
