It already had fallout Chernoboyl. If I was a betting man those odds are still likely. Not dismissed. Or no odds.

Russia has undergone extensive fallout training, and is in the process of fallout training. It has also recently few years back prepped home population for it. It had drills in its major cities.

No, tactical nuke fallout is minimal. Dissipates quicker. But depending on that payload can be for longer. And depending on how many strikes used, or how big an area they cover.

I wouldn't necessarily worry about tactical nukes unless at ground zero or in their radius. Not that kind of nuke, like Hydrogen, Cobalt those city killers. City killers yea. ICBMs. That shit causes far wider fallout for miles some are huge blast and fallout radius, 50 miles, fallout in a 100. It can blow across for miles. It can hit the atmosphere.

Tacs not so much, far more localised, and dissipate rather quickly, because those readings go rapidly. But again I am quoting second hand sources. But forget isn't it like in a year or a few. Gone. With readings habitable potentially in months.

I am sure there's a source, my memoryhole. But wasn't this tested recently with them.

Nuke, no. It would be a gamble. Worst wouldn't be the fallout. But it would be that move there isn't any getting out of. Not because the other side calls. But because you've isolated your position. An International response, could swing allies back to an opponent. It's easier to condemn that action. Not necessarily war. Although it's also a possibility from them. Worse consequences towards your entire position. Not to mention your own population suddenly panicking.

A gamble, an option. But I wouldn't dismiss them. Easier using them to win. A probability the longer it takes to find peace, it's being rejected. It means they increase in probability.

But who knows?

It already had fallout Chernoboyl. If I was a betting man those odds are still likely. Not dismissed. Or no odds.

Russia has undergone extensive fallout training, and is in the process of fallout training. It has also recently few years back prepped home population for it. It had drills in its major cities.

No, tactical nuke fallout is minimal. Dissipates quicker. But depending on that payload can be for longer. And depending on how many strikes used, or how big an area they cover.

I wouldn't necessarily worry about tactical nukes unless at ground zero or in their radius. Not that kind of nuke, like Hydrogen, Cobalt those city killers. City killers yea. ICBMs. That shit causes far wider fallout for miles some are huge blast and fallout radius, 50 miles, fallout in a 100. It can blow across for miles. It can hit the atmosphere.

Tacs not so much, far more localised, and dissipate rather quickly, because those readings go rapidly. But again I am quoting second hand sources. But forget isn't it like in a year or a few. Gone. With readings habitable potentially in months.

I am sure there's a source, my memoryhole. But wasn't this tested recently with them.

Nuke, no. It would be a gamble. Worst wouldn't be the fallout. But it would be that move there isn't any getting out of. Not because the other side calls. But because you've isolated your position. An International response, could swing allies back to an opponent. It's easier to condemn that action. Not necessarily war. Although it's also a possibility from them. Worse consequences towards your position. Not to mention your own population suddenly panicking.

A gamble, an option. But I wouldn't dismiss them. Easier using them to win. A probability the longer it takes to find peace, it's being rejected. It means they increase in probability.

But who knows?

It already had fallout Chernoboyl. If I was a betting man those odds are still likely. Not dismissed. Or no odds.

Russia has undergone extensive fallout training, and is in the process of fallout training. It has also recently few years back prepped home population for it. It had drills in its major cities.

No, tactical nuke fallout is minimal. Dissipates quicker. But depending on that payload can be for longer. And depending on how many strikes used, or how big an area they cover.

I wouldn't necessarily worry about tactical nukes unless at ground zero or in their radius. Not that kind of nuke, like Hydrogen, Cobalt those city killers. City killers yea. ICBMs. That shit causes far wider fallout for miles some are huge blast and fallout radius, 50 miles, fallout in a 100. It can blow across for miles. It can hit the atmosphere.

Tacs not so much, far more localised, and dissipate rather quickly, because those readings go rapidly. But again I am quoting second hand sources. But forget isn't it like in a year or a few. Gone. With readings habitable potentially in months.

I am sure there's a source, my memoryhole. But wasn't this tested recently with them.

Nuke, no. It would be a gamble. Worst wouldn't be the fallout. But it would be that move there isn't any getting out of. Not because the other side calls. But because you've isolated your position. An International response, could swing allies back to an opponent. It's easier to condemn that action. Not necessarily war. Although it's also a possibility from them. Worst consequences towards your position. Not to mention your own population suddenly panicking.

A gamble, an option. But I wouldn't dismiss them. Easier using them to win. A probability the longer it takes to find peace, it's being rejected. It means they increase in probability.

But who knows?