Embrace the "Nuance" of Nuclear Weapons
Embrace the "Nuance" of Nuclear Weapons
We must not allow a missing rung on America's nuclear escalation ladder!
I get email notices for Aether, a professional journal for “strategic airpower & spacepower,” and the lead article on the cover caught my eye:
A Tactical Nuclear Mindset: Deterring with Conventional Apples and Nuclear Oranges
James R. McCue, Adam Lowther, and James Davis
Comparing and contrasting low-yield theater nuclear weapons with conventional precision strike weapons leads to a nuanced conclusion that both contribute to deterrence.
Imagine that! Both nuclear and conventional weapons “contribute to deterrence.” Even though they’re apparently apples and oranges. Well, there’s “nuance” for you.
Anybody want a tasty nuclear “orange”? Fresh and juicy, and with a low yield. It may very well deter you from eating citrus fruit for, well, forever.
I’m not familiar with the authors of the piece. McCue is an Air Force lieutenant colonel with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. I don’t know about you, but suggesting that low-yield nukes can be used in nuanced ways heightens my sense of threat. Lowther directs strategic deterrence programs at the National Strategic Research Institute, which makes me think anew about the meaning of “deterrence.” In this case, it seems to mean the willingness to use nuclear weapons against “bad actors” like China but especially Putin and Russia. And Davis is an Army major assigned to U.S. Central Command. It’s nice to know the Army, just like the Air Force, has a strange love for nukes.
In essence, the article’s argument is this: Russia, China, and North Korea are “investing” in low-yield nukes while the U.S. and other NATO allies have generally been reducing their arsenals of the same. To deter those three adversaries, the U.S. must make new “investments” in low-yield nukes, because you never know what those foreigners are up to.
Here’s how the authors put it in their conclusion: “In the right circumstances conventional weapons offer greater certainty of destruction than tactical nuclear weapons. The West must examine what this means for warfighting, as well as what adversaries are signaling by investing in low-yield nuclear weapons. The best solution may be the development of a state-of-the-art nuclear capability that ensures certain, prompt, proportionate, and in-kind response options. The perception of a missing rung on the American escalation ladder could prove alluring to Russia or China in a conflict.”
Mr. President, we must not allow a missing rung on America’s escalation ladder!
Even if that “missing rung” is only a “perception.”
Let’s keep that in mind if nuclear weapons start flying in Europe or Asia. We can console ourselves that at least we weren’t missing a rung in our escalatory ladder as millions get blasted, burnt, and irradiated.
Reading this review brings a few different thoughts to mind. 1) First, it's clear that normalizing the use of nuclear weapons is now a main thrust of the National Security State. We are very, very far from the days when Presidents actually tried to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and gave warnings about the danger of armed conflict between nuclear powers, as JFK did about 60 years ago: "Mankind must put an end to war--or war will put an end to mankind." In complete contrast, in today's world, Joe "Cold War" Biden and his cohort of neocons do everything possible to ratchet up the threat by promoting war and direct confrontation with Russia and China; 2) Second, human beings clearly lack the intelligence to realize that they are jeopardizing their own survival as well as the survival of all flora and fauna. Between the creation and use (only by the USA thus far) of nuclear weapons along with the totally suicidal endless burning of fossil fuels, human beings seem determined to wipe themselves out; and 3) I think it's time for me to watch once again Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" in order to ward off the feelings of total hopelessness.
I recommend everyone go to the AIRNOW site and look at the smoke map from the Canadian wildfires. The coverage is immense and has at times extended to Spain and Britain. Keep in mind that these fires are from wood burning. In a nuclear war there would be multiple cities on fire with all the chemicals associated burning furiously and nobody to even begin to put them out. Nuclear fireballs would raise the cloud to heights far above that of wildfire smoke where it would persist and it would be radioactive. Can anyone doubt nuclear winter? I took my light meter out and measured the sunlight through the smoke cloud at less than half the norm. Any discussion of nuclear weapons should make one sweat and raise the heartbeat. There is no place on Earth that would escape the results. Starvation and radiation reaches the most well stocked "prepper." Where are the billionaires on this subject? Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg never say a thing about it. Do we even have a Greta speaking out?
As I have mentioned, I think it is inevitable, we are complacent and it is only a matter of time before either intentional or accidental nuclear detonation ignites panic and automatic escalation. But that's not to say it is wrong to protest the madness. I say the same about global warming.