Strategic Update:
Today's post will deal with the unthinkable--use of nuclear weapons. Lots and lots of scary articles in the mainstream media, talk and chatter on the web right now. It all looks super alarming.
It is important to remember that the threat of nuclear war is still very low. Not impossible, but remote.
There have been no reported movements of tactical warheads out of Russian storage facilities. I have not seen any NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) gear captured by the Ukrainians. They've captured everything else, so either the Russians did not deploy with it, or the Ukrainians are censoring images of that stuff.
Putin's "Special combat alert" for his nuclear forces has not appeared to make any difference in their posture, and it is still unclear if it actually meant any concrete steps were taken, or if it was just part of Putin's brinksmanship to scare the West.
Here's some of the more recent developments on this front, along with the different range of viewpoints on this that I've found. Keep in mind the context: the threat right now is low.
---------------------------
1. A Russian lawmaker, Alexei Zhuravlyov, stated publicly that if NATO sends a "peacekeeping" force into Ukraine, the Russians will strike back with nuclear weapons against those troops and target Warsaw. Zhuravlyov is a member of the Rodina ultra-nationalist, communist party, and advocated kidnapping U.S. Congressman Ruben Gallego in December for being an advocate of aid to Ukraine. Gallego's public response was, "F-- around and find out." So, two super geniuses of statesmanship right here. He has appeared on camera in a military uniform telling people he was going to the front (in February) and urged everyone to fight to liberate the Donbas. He's stated publicly that the world is Russia's to own and dominate.
Here is his appearance on Russian TV where he advocates nuclear war in the event of NATO intervention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueQTxtWV-AU
2. One of Russia's diplomats at the UN did an interview with conservative Australian TV station Skynews and said the West should not threaten a nuclear power (Russia). See that here at CNN:
3. The French reportedly cycled onto a higher nuclear alert last night. The French reportedly surged three of their four nuclear-weapon-armed submarines to sea. Normally, they rotate to keep one at sea at all times. France has about 300 warheads.
4. The Biden administration has not escalated or put American strategic forces at a higher DEFCON. 5= no threat, 1= war imminent. Exactly where they are on the DEFCON scale is conjecture--mainly that STRATCOM is at DEFCON 4.
However, Peter Pry just wrote an article here that is an outlier among most of the nuclear war/threat analysts. In it, he states the U.S. strategic forces are at DEFCON 5 and ripe to be destroyed by a Russian first strike.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/.../the_nuclear_911_in...
Pry is a late Cold War warrior, serving in the CIA from 1985-95 as a nuclear plans/threat analyst. He's also been a member of the nuclear verification team post-Cold War. He is currently the executive director of a Congressional advisory task force on homeland security.
Pry is an outlier and represents a minority viewpoint on the current threat of a nuclear attack. There are a few others, most late Cold War warriors who are now retired who believe we are heading toward a collision, but the vast majority of the current analysts and nuclear warfare specialists seem to believe the threat is low, and mainly focused on a Russian use of tactical (Non Strategic Nuclear Weapons) in Ukraine.
Also, as Jon Parshall has pointed out, a Russian first strike would not be able to eliminate our submarine-based warheads, and they would destroy Russia. So, the threat of this seems very, very remote.
The prevailing that counters Pry's, as far as I've found, is best represented by Prof Matthew Kroenig. He is a director at the Atlantic Council and teaches at Georgetown. His bio is here:
His Twitter feed is here:
His view is that the threat of nuclear war is low, but if it happens the weapons used will likely be used in Ukraine. That will put the United States and NATO in a position where they must choose how best to respond to this. Kroenig believes the US and the Biden Administration would find a non-nuclear option to respond to such an attack.
That said, Biden announced after the meeting in Brussels that NATO/US would respond "in kind" to a nuclear, chemical or biological attack. The U.S. has no functional chemical weapons anymore--all but about 5% of the stockpile has been destroyed. The remain 5% is scheduled to be destroyed and they're old and non-combat ready. So, we can't respond in kind to a chemical attack. Thus, the position Biden is really talking about using a nuclear weapon in response to a Russian nuclear attack in Ukraine.
Kroenig lays out the most likely possible scenarios in a recent School of War podcast. The challenge as he sees it is this:
Putin uses nuclear rhetoric and brinksmanship to force the West into a choice: Surrender or face Suicide by massive nuclear war because he's willing to use them first. How to counter that strategy is an exceptionally difficult strategic issue, and there are divergent opinions on the best way to proceed.
The podcast can be found here and is really worth a listen:
5. A small group of civilians, including engineer Ivan Stepanov and former RISOP analyst David Teter. have been building a new open source RISOP. What is RISOP? Red Integrated Strategic Offensive Plan (RISOP). This is essentially a probable target list in the US in the event of different kinds of retaliatory strikes. There are some old FEMA maps from 1990 and 1996 showing various possible targets in the event of a limited exchange or full exchange. These guys are trying to fill the gap. Teter is a former Cold War-era analyst whose job was to divine probable Russian targets in the even of nuclear war. Ivan grew up next to the Soviet-era nuclear test ranges. Their simulator is here:
David tweets here:
Ivan tweets here:
6. Lastly, the Biden Administration has assembled a group of policy and security experts to look for ways to respond to a Russian first-use of chemical or nuclear weapons in Ukraine. According to the New York Times, this is called the "Tiger Team" and was designed to arm President Biden with options and discussion points on this front when he meets with the other NATO leaders in Brussels this week. See the article here:
https://www.nytimes.com/.../biden-ru...uclear-weapons...
It is important to note that the administration members interviewed for the article state they have seen nothing from the Russians that merit raising our alert level.
Today's post will deal with the unthinkable--use of nuclear weapons. Lots and lots of scary articles in the mainstream media, talk and chatter on the web right now. It all looks super alarming.
It is important to remember that the threat of nuclear war is still very low. Not impossible, but remote.
There have been no reported movements of tactical warheads out of Russian storage facilities. I have not seen any NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) gear captured by the Ukrainians. They've captured everything else, so either the Russians did not deploy with it, or the Ukrainians are censoring images of that stuff.
Putin's "Special combat alert" for his nuclear forces has not appeared to make any difference in their posture, and it is still unclear if it actually meant any concrete steps were taken, or if it was just part of Putin's brinksmanship to scare the West.
Here's some of the more recent developments on this front, along with the different range of viewpoints on this that I've found. Keep in mind the context: the threat right now is low.
---------------------------
1. A Russian lawmaker, Alexei Zhuravlyov, stated publicly that if NATO sends a "peacekeeping" force into Ukraine, the Russians will strike back with nuclear weapons against those troops and target Warsaw. Zhuravlyov is a member of the Rodina ultra-nationalist, communist party, and advocated kidnapping U.S. Congressman Ruben Gallego in December for being an advocate of aid to Ukraine. Gallego's public response was, "F-- around and find out." So, two super geniuses of statesmanship right here. He has appeared on camera in a military uniform telling people he was going to the front (in February) and urged everyone to fight to liberate the Donbas. He's stated publicly that the world is Russia's to own and dominate.
Here is his appearance on Russian TV where he advocates nuclear war in the event of NATO intervention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueQTxtWV-AU
2. One of Russia's diplomats at the UN did an interview with conservative Australian TV station Skynews and said the West should not threaten a nuclear power (Russia). See that here at CNN:
3. The French reportedly cycled onto a higher nuclear alert last night. The French reportedly surged three of their four nuclear-weapon-armed submarines to sea. Normally, they rotate to keep one at sea at all times. France has about 300 warheads.
4. The Biden administration has not escalated or put American strategic forces at a higher DEFCON. 5= no threat, 1= war imminent. Exactly where they are on the DEFCON scale is conjecture--mainly that STRATCOM is at DEFCON 4.
However, Peter Pry just wrote an article here that is an outlier among most of the nuclear war/threat analysts. In it, he states the U.S. strategic forces are at DEFCON 5 and ripe to be destroyed by a Russian first strike.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/.../the_nuclear_911_in...
Pry is a late Cold War warrior, serving in the CIA from 1985-95 as a nuclear plans/threat analyst. He's also been a member of the nuclear verification team post-Cold War. He is currently the executive director of a Congressional advisory task force on homeland security.
Pry is an outlier and represents a minority viewpoint on the current threat of a nuclear attack. There are a few others, most late Cold War warriors who are now retired who believe we are heading toward a collision, but the vast majority of the current analysts and nuclear warfare specialists seem to believe the threat is low, and mainly focused on a Russian use of tactical (Non Strategic Nuclear Weapons) in Ukraine.
Also, as Jon Parshall has pointed out, a Russian first strike would not be able to eliminate our submarine-based warheads, and they would destroy Russia. So, the threat of this seems very, very remote.
The prevailing that counters Pry's, as far as I've found, is best represented by Prof Matthew Kroenig. He is a director at the Atlantic Council and teaches at Georgetown. His bio is here:
His Twitter feed is here:
His view is that the threat of nuclear war is low, but if it happens the weapons used will likely be used in Ukraine. That will put the United States and NATO in a position where they must choose how best to respond to this. Kroenig believes the US and the Biden Administration would find a non-nuclear option to respond to such an attack.
That said, Biden announced after the meeting in Brussels that NATO/US would respond "in kind" to a nuclear, chemical or biological attack. The U.S. has no functional chemical weapons anymore--all but about 5% of the stockpile has been destroyed. The remain 5% is scheduled to be destroyed and they're old and non-combat ready. So, we can't respond in kind to a chemical attack. Thus, the position Biden is really talking about using a nuclear weapon in response to a Russian nuclear attack in Ukraine.
Kroenig lays out the most likely possible scenarios in a recent School of War podcast. The challenge as he sees it is this:
Putin uses nuclear rhetoric and brinksmanship to force the West into a choice: Surrender or face Suicide by massive nuclear war because he's willing to use them first. How to counter that strategy is an exceptionally difficult strategic issue, and there are divergent opinions on the best way to proceed.
The podcast can be found here and is really worth a listen:
5. A small group of civilians, including engineer Ivan Stepanov and former RISOP analyst David Teter. have been building a new open source RISOP. What is RISOP? Red Integrated Strategic Offensive Plan (RISOP). This is essentially a probable target list in the US in the event of different kinds of retaliatory strikes. There are some old FEMA maps from 1990 and 1996 showing various possible targets in the event of a limited exchange or full exchange. These guys are trying to fill the gap. Teter is a former Cold War-era analyst whose job was to divine probable Russian targets in the even of nuclear war. Ivan grew up next to the Soviet-era nuclear test ranges. Their simulator is here:
David tweets here:
Ivan tweets here:
6. Lastly, the Biden Administration has assembled a group of policy and security experts to look for ways to respond to a Russian first-use of chemical or nuclear weapons in Ukraine. According to the New York Times, this is called the "Tiger Team" and was designed to arm President Biden with options and discussion points on this front when he meets with the other NATO leaders in Brussels this week. See the article here:
https://www.nytimes.com/.../biden-ru...uclear-weapons...
It is important to note that the administration members interviewed for the article state they have seen nothing from the Russians that merit raising our alert level.
Comment