The Myth of Ukraine's Nuclear Missile Capability Against Russia

Imagine the scenario: Ukraine, with a few warheads, strategically places them, targeting major Russian cities. Alternatively, 'give Russia an excuse to destroy Ukraine,' some may theorize, placing the underdogs in an impossible position. However, a closer examination reveals the complexities and implications of such actions.

Understanding Nuclear Missile Capabilities

Could Ukraine inflict significant damage on Russia through nuclear means? The reality is more complicated than a simple yes or no. Ukraine's indigenous missiles, the Kh-35, have a maximum range of 300 km, while U.S.-supplied HIMARS systems have an effective range of up to 499 km with Precision Strike Missiles. Despite these capabilities, the immense distance from Ukraine to Moscow presents substantial challenges.

The Geographical Challenges

The easternmost part of Ukraine consists of the rebel-held Donbas region in Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. The distance from these regions to Moscow is approximately 1000 km, nearly 500 miles. Can advanced HIMARS systems travel such a vast distance? The answer is no, not without significant modifications and additional support.

Controversial Countermeasures

To enhance Ukraine's ability to launch a strategic strike, it has been suggested that the U.S. should provide ATACAMS, a long-range strike-capable missile system. However, even with such systems, the journey is fraught with challenges, including evading Russian radar and missile defense systems, particularly the S-400.

The Ethical and Strategic Detriments

Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons would not be a solution in a conflict. Ukraine, respecting life on Earth, understands the catastrophic consequences. The nuclear fallout from 300 km range missiles could travel 100 miles in just a few days, affecting not only Russia but also other nations in the region.

Historical Precedents and Ethical Considerations

History has shown the devastating impact of nuclear weapons. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II resulted in the deaths of over 300,000 people in just two days. The idea that using nuclear weapons in Ukraine could 'save lives' and 'end the conflict' is ethically and morally untenable.

The Logical Consequences of Use

U.S. actions in WWII, with Japan as the target, were justified by the exigencies of war. Similarly, if Russia were to launch a nuclear strike, it would likely result in significant destruction and casualties on all sides. Ukraine, aware of these risks, would never resort to such extreme measures, honoring the sanctity of human life.

The Realities of Modern Warfare

Modern warfare is far more complex than the simple use of nuclear missiles. Strategic military operations require detailed planning, matchups, and alliances. The assertion that a small country like Ukraine could successfully launch a nuclear missile against a superpower like Russia is fundamentally flawed.

Contemplating the Final Battle

Speculations about a 'Final Battle' leading to World War III are highly speculative and fraught with danger. The reality is that such a scenario could trigger a global catastrophe, as evidenced by nuclear threats during the Cold War and subsequent conflicts.

In conclusion, while the idea of a nuclear strike from Ukraine against Russia is often presented as a simple solution, the complex geopolitical landscape, ethical considerations, and practical challenges make such a scenario exceedingly unlikely and detrimental.