Here
and
Now

opinions

West, Russia mull nuclear steps in a 'more dangerous' world

12 Comments
By ELLEN KNICKMEYER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


12 Comments
Login to comment

The US has the capability to knock down Russia's nuclear command and control, kill much of their leadership and take out their nuclear arsenal using only conventional weapons, but the US and NATO together would have to be willing to commit fully. It would be all out war at that point and risky but using stealth bombers, F-35s, RQ-180s and who knows what isn't in the public realm it is possible to do. But that would be a risky last resort and the first strike would have to take out their nuclear command and control and their leadership to buy the time to go after all those ICBM silos before the Russians figure out a new command and control architecture or the rest doesn't necessarily work. It is something to be used only if Russia actually detonated a nuclear weapon but it is probably better than a nuclear war. Risky? Yep. Maybe even crazy but not as crazy as a nuclear war.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Desert T......

You are however, forgetting about the submarine fleet. Putin has stated on many occasions that Russia is no match for Nato. This is may be the reason why for M.A.D to be effective the Russians have to get theirs arsenal off first. Which is why moving Nato to its border and unilaterally ending missile treaties is really dangerous.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Daniel Ellsberg, has written eloquently on the topic: The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. One element he highlights is the intent to launch the entirety of the USA nuclear arsenal in tandem aka all at once, in response to a first strike threat - not a first strike, a first strike 'threat'. Targeting every city of 25,000 or larger in Russia and also nuking China just because. That's an actual plan. The only opponent was the head of the Marines. Your tax dollars at work. Read the book.

The quaint notion of a limited or tactical nuclear war is completely insane.

The inevitable result is the immediate end of civilization and the death of every living thing via nuclear winter.

One might note, the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, is responsible for a trillion dollar upgrade & expansion of the nuclear arsenal. Joe Biden was vice-president in that administration.

Nuclear war. Armageddon. Inevitable. As, Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky and other scholars and military experts have noted, it is a miracle that the planet has not been destroyed by nuclear apocalypse and a matter of what passes for luck - such as the actions of Stanislav Petrov, in 1983. As is, which seemingly is not slated to change, nuclear war will happen.

Unless actions are taken to reduce and eliminate the threat of nuclear war - the day will arise where nuclear war ends our very lives. Think about that. Your political and military leaders are the responsible parties planning out such. These people are willing to kill off all of you - and for what? And there are discussions in a public sphere entertaining the notion of a limited nuclear exchange, as if it is a parlor game.

It is imperative to limit, ban and eventually dispose of nuclear weapons. Which requires diplomacy and treaties. Not theoretical treatise on limited nuclear exchanges. Examine any in depth assessment of the top brass in the U.S. military - they actually entertain the notion of total war and the use of nuclear weapons. They are very, very dangerous people and will be the death of us all - many have absolutely no respect for 'civilians' aka politicians, up to the president. Read various commentary by Curtis LeMay or Maxwell Taylor to get a feel for these so-called warriors and their willingness to use nuclear weapons.

As Khrushchev said, "The living will envy the dead."

1 ( +3 / -2 )

You are however, forgetting about the submarine fleet.

At least when I served every one of their boomers was tracked at all times and they were not going to survive long in the event of a NATO / Warsaw Pact war. Their subs have always been relatively noisy and easily tracked and there was an expectation that certain Admirals could tell you where every Soviet boomer was at any time with no guessing. The US and allied navies put huge effort into tracking their subs, to the point we knew individual units of a class by their unique and individual acoustic signatures.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is imperative to limit, ban and eventually dispose of nuclear weapons. Which requires diplomacy and treaties

I think it is possible with some good will among the nuclear powers to reduce arsenals but I don't think it is possible to ever have zero nuclear weapons. The motivation and ability to cheat is just too great. Consider that Sweden was able to develop a nuclear weapons program throughout the 1960s without being detected or even suspected. Nobody had a clue until their PM went on national television circa 1970 to announce Sweden was ending its nuclear weapons program. They apparently conducted some ten or twelve underground tests without being detected. Nobody outside of maybe Sweden knows if they were subcritical tests or if they had a critical yield.

My point here is that if all but one nation honestly disarms, one cheater with a half dozen or so easily hidden nuclear weapons can hold the whole world hostage. Building an Isreali sized arsenal in secret isn't likely, but five or six hidden weapons is possible. If all the other nuclear powers are honest and disarm, a half dozen nukes is enough to hold them hostage to your demands. No national leader who currently has nuclear arms will allow themselves to be placed in that position. It may be possible to greatly reduce arsenals but I sincerely doubt any nation is going to fully relinquish them, fearing being blackmailed by a malevolent nuclear cheater. They will keep a small number of their own nuclear weapons, enough to deter cheaters from doing anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

 One element he highlights is the intent to launch the entirety of the USA nuclear arsenal in tandem aka all at once, in response to a first strike threat -

The US would save their SLBMs for a second strike in the event that became necessary (what a horrible thought). They would not be part of a first strike in the scenarios I am familiar with. Unlike Russian and Chinese boomers, American boomers are exceptionally quiet and the Russians were never able to track one (consider the USSR never built more than 58 IL-38 May anti-submarine patrol planes capable of finding submerged subs while Lockheed built 650 P-3 ASW patrol planes and Kawasaki built another 107 for the JMSDF, the west takes ASW very seriously, invests heavily in it, trains constantly and are thus very good). That makes America's SLBMs more survivable than the land based ICBMs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well that’s what the west wants. How else can you explain NATO pushing and pushing closer to Russia. Did they think they wouldn’t notice or do anything. What the heck do we need NATO for anyway? So we can strafe some third world in North Africa?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

How to respond to any use by Russia of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons was among the issues discussed by Biden and other Western leaders when they met in Europe in late March. Three NATO members — the United States, Britain and France — have nuclear weapons.

Seems that none of these countries have the answer.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Russia never threatened to use nuclear weapons !

I doubt that NATO would do anything about it even if it did happen.

A gas mask certainly wouldn't offer much protection.

Is the United States and NATO really " far stronger " ?

Iam sceptical of this statement - " far stronger "

And yes it does look like NATO instigated the Ukraine crisis.

Saber rattling ? A katana is a saber and its not a nuclear weapon !

No a saber isn't a sword either.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Russia never threatened to use nuclear weapons !

On Feb. 24, 2022, Russian president Vladimir Putin threatened that any country that interfered in Ukraine would “face consequences greater than any you have faced in history.” Mr. Putin followed this up with an order to increase the combat readiness of Russia's nuclear forces. Many experts and observers interpreted this as a threat of nuclear attacks against Ukraine’s defenders.

And yes it does look like NATO instigated the Ukraine crisis.

How is this possible? Despite repeated Ukrainian requests NATO had not begun the formal ascension process with Ukraine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems that none of these countries have the answer.

Don't mistake diplomatic ambiguity with not having a plan. NATO isn't going to reveal their plans beforehand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Desert TortoiseToday  02:38 am JST

Don't mistake diplomatic ambiguity with not having a plan. NATO isn't going to reveal their plans beforehand.

I will mistake inaction with not having a plan.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites