Is The Concept And Strategy Of 'Limited Nuclear War' Making A Comback?

YouTube

Jeff Schogol, Task & Purpose: US Revives Idea Of Limited Nuclear War That Doesn’t Destroy The Planet

A nuclear war doesn’t have to be the end of the world, according to the U.S. government’s latest Nuclear Posture Review.

The recently updated policy on nuclear weapons calls for fitting existing submarine-launched ballistic missiles with low-yield warheads to deter Russia, which believes that if it uses tactical nuclear weapons as part of a first strike, it can de-escalate a crisis on its terms because the United States would not want to counter with a full nuclear strike.

In other words, the United States could respond to a tactical nuclear strike with a low-yield weapon instead of escalating to World War III. For the long term, the Defense and Energy Departments will also study how to develop new submarine-launched cruise missiles that can also be fitted with low-yield warheads.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: It is hard to believe that when the policy and strategy of "limited nuclear war" was first debated (and ridiculed) in the 1970s and 1980s .... it is now coming back 30 years later for the simple reason that both Russia and the U.S. now believe that it may help deter an all-out nuclear exchange. I have always believed that if war should ever break-out between the U.S. and Russia .... the use of a tactical nuclear weapon would quickly accelerate into an all-out nuclear exchange .... and within hours. I felt it strongly then .... and now 30 years later .... I am more sure than ever that this is what will happen should war break out. Unfortunately .... we are now at the cusp of a new nuclear arms race, and the public in both the U.S. and Russia are not paying attention.

Talking Up World War III Nuclear Scenarios

Topol-M road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile.(RIA Novosti / Syisoev)

News.com.au: The ‘war’ word is being increasingly heard as Europe, Russia, China and the United States adopt provocative postures

IS the world going mad? Military posturing is quietly reaching new extremes in Europe, the Mediterranean and the South China Sea. And the provocative bluster has just reached new heights.

The source was anonymous. But the mouthpiece has a measure of credibility. High profile military analyst and former US Naval War College lecturer John Schindler tweeted last week: “Said a senior NATO (non-US) GOFO to me today: ‘We’ll probably be at war this summer. If we’re lucky it won’t be nuclear.’ Let that sink in.”

The warning comes as Europe engages in some of its biggest ever war games — right on Russia’s front door. It’s a deliberate ploy, intended to remind Moscow of the consequences of its duplicitous invasion of Ukraine.

WNU Editor: There are two situations that can bring about a major nuclear conflict .... the first one is between the West and Russia because of Ukraine, and the second one involves Chinese claims of sovereignty over the South China Sea. Of the two I believe that the dispute over Ukraine is the easiest one to be resolved. Many in the Russian dominated part of eastern Ukraine do not want to be ruled by Kiev anymore .... and many in the other parts of Ukraine are not interested in going to war against their cousins in the east. I have sadly accepted this situation .... and once Kiev and its allies also accept this reality .... that is when the first serious political discussions and compromises will be made. There are (of course) hardcore nationalists on both sides of the Ukraine conflict who want the war to continue and who are not interested in compromise .... but no one in Europe wants a major war .... and it will be this sentiment that will eventually force a Ukrainian agreement in the future. But for now ... expect low intensity war-fare in Ukraine to continue, and more military drills and war games throughout the European theater of operations.

In regards to the South South China Sea .... that is a completely different scenario ... and it appears that the Chinese are willing to overtly use their military force to enforce their claims. Because there is no interest from Beijing to compromise .... we are now being presented with a situation where there is "no out" .... a position that is impossible for countries like Vietnam and the Philippines to accept. What complicates this crisis is that other countries outside of this dispute have a vested interest in what happens in the South China Sea. Case in point .... Japan. Oil passes though this region to reach Japan, and Japanese exports pass through this region to go to the Indian subcontinent , Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Chinese control of this trade route would be unacceptable to Tokyo, and Tokyo also knows that China already has a dispute with Japan over maritime boundaries .... and once the South China Sea dispute is settled, they are next on China's list of issues to be tackled. In addition .... because of U.S. treaty obligations any major Asian conflict would eventually drag the U.S. military .... and in that scenario .... anything would be possible.

Why A Former American And A Former Russian General Are Suddenly Very Worried About Nuclear War

RIA Novosti / Sergey Kazak

Zero Hedge: Why An American And A Russian General Are Suddenly Very Worried About Nuclear War

Over the past several years, there has been an alarming escalation of two very disturbing trends: an increasing preponderance of cyberattacks on complex infrastructure (whether domestic or abroad and whether instigated by external sources or internally, in a false falg attempt to evolve the issue to the benefit of various military-industrial complex benficiaries) as well as around the globe, and a largely unexpected return to a Cold War footing, one catalyzed by the violent US-sponsored overthrow of the former Kiev government and the eagerness to escalate the resultant conflict exhibited by the Kremlin.

If one extends said trends, one would arrive at a very unpleasant conclusion: due to the porous nature of modern technology and the increasing prevalence of cyberattacks, coupled with Cold War-era nuclear doctrines and rising tensions between the two superpowers who are now back to a Cold War regime, a nuclear war has suddenly emerged yet again as a very real threat.

WNU Editor: They are correct in their assessment in that it is all about trends, and current doctrine will not be able to prevent future conflicts as technology and warfare changes. Former U.S. General James Cartwright and former Russian General Vladimir Dvorkin's New York Times post is here .... How to Avert a Nuclear War (New York Times)

Update #1: U.S. and Russian Generals Call for Reducing the Risk of Inadvertent Nuclear War -- Union of Concerned Scientists
Update #2: Сybercriminals may provoke nuclear disaster - US, Russian generals -- RT

Can A U.S. Nuclear Force Of Only 300 Strategic Weapons Be Enough To Deter A Nuclear Attack On America?

Photo: United States Trident II (D-5) missile underwater launch. Wikipedia

Time To Change America’s Atomic Arsenal -- Tom Nichols, The Diplomat

The new mission for U.S. nuclear weapons -- minimum deterrence: The prevention of a major nuclear attack on America with a small force -- perhaps as low as 300 strategic weapons.

Nuclear weapons in 2013 have been pushed yet again into the policy background as more pressing matters – the appalling collapse of the U.S. budget process among them – have absorbed all of Washington’s intellectual bandwidth. President Obama’s reelection means that the United States will remain publicly committed to nuclear reductions, but the studies that were supposed to detail those further reductions are now languishing in bureaucratic limbo and are unlikely to be a high priority. If nothing changes, the U.S. strategic deterrent will stay right where it has been since the early 1990s: merely a smaller version of the force we once arrayed against the Soviet Union.

Read more ....

My Comment: He makes a convincing argument .... that the use of nuclear weapons is what deterred both countries (the U.S. and the Soviet Union) from using nuclear weapons .... not the quantity of weapons that are available. But the Russians are not biting .... and for minimum deterrence to work it is preferable that both countries are on-board.

Should the U.S. De-Alert It's Land-Based Nuclear Missiles?

13 Minutes To Doomsday -- Washington Post editorial

THROUGHOUT THE Cold War, the United States kept land-based missiles with nuclear warheads on alert and ready to launch in three to four minutes after the president gave the order. Every president of the missile age was briefed about the procedure: In the event of an impending attack, the decision to launch would have to be made in 13 minutes or less. The theory of deterrence was that the United States had to threaten certain and large-scale retaliation against the Soviet Union, and that meant being prepared to shoot fast.

Read more ....

My Comment: I can see the logic in 'de-alerting' our land based nuclear missiles. It lessens the chance of an accidental launch, and we will still have our submarine nuclear deterrent intact. Will Russian President Putin see this the same way .... from what I am reading in the Russian press, I will have to say no .... especially since the issue of missile defense has not been resolved.

Do Nuclear Weapons Make Sense?

Nuclear Weapons Just Don’t Make Sense -- Walter Pincus, Washington Post

Nuclear weapons are terror weapons, and basically unusable.

That’s one reason why no rational strategy, other than deterrence, has ever been developed to justify them. Events in the past 10 days make my case.

On Tuesday, the British government — in the midst of an austerity program that includes cutting education, health and retirement programs — announced contract awards of $595 millon to begin design of replacements for its four nuclear submarines that carry Trident sub-launched ballistic missiles.

Read more ....

My Comment: Aside from deterrence .... the case can be made that nuclear weapons only serve a limited purpose in today's world. But deterrence is the reason why we have nuclear weapons .... and while there is no real enemy today to be targeted by these systems .... history provides us with an understanding that we do live in dangerous times .... and in such a volatile world .... who can say with certainty on what dangers and threats may appear in the future.

Would President Obama Retaliate Against A Nuclear Attack?

Would Obama Retaliate Against A Nuclear Attack? -- Rabbi Aryeh Spero, American Thinker

What if a Muslim country, such as Iran, launched a nuclear attack against us, or if agents aligned with Pakistan using dirty bombs were to attack America? Would Barack Hussein Obama retaliate with nuclear force, as has been our stated policy since the 1950s? Would he even unleash a barrage of non-nuclear shock and awe that would level those countries so that they'd be incapable of striking a second time?

Read more ....

My Comment: If the US was to suffer a nuclear attack .... and the attacker is known .... the sequence of events that will occur will propel President Obama to respond .... and respond forcefully even if he is inclined not to. Reason ..... failure to do so will result in such an outcry that he, his policies, and the Democrat party will be consigned forever to the dustbin of history .... something that would be totally unacceptable to him and to most of his loyal backers.

A Must Read Commentary On Nuclear Deterrence In the 21rst Century

The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent -- Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, Foreign Affairs

Summary:

The Obama administration is right that the United States can safely cut some of its nuclear arsenal, but it must retain the right capabilities. Otherwise, the United States' adversaries might conclude -- perhaps correctly -- that Washington's nuclear strategy rests largely on a bluff.

KEIR A. LIEBER is Associate Professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. DARYL G. PRESS is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College and Coordinator of the War and Peace Studies Program at the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding.

Read more ....

Hat Tip: Theo Spark

My Comment: For the rest of the article (because of membership restrictions), go to the link here.

The Mideast Nuclear-Arms Scramble -- A Commentary

Bushehr nuclear power plant ... John Bolton says both the US and Israel are capable of disrupting Iran's nuclear program. (File photo) (AFP: AFP PHOTO STR)

From The New York Post:

FEARS that the Obama administration intends to let Iran become a nuclear power has sent other Middle Eastern countries shopping around for partners to help them join the nuclear club.

Saudi Arabia is the latest, announcing last Sunday that it's reached an "agreement in principle" with France to develop a "nuclear industry for peaceful purposes." It becomes the third Arab country -- after Egypt and Qatar -- to seek French help in joining the nuclear club. The United Arab Emirates, which has signed a pact with the United States not to enrich uranium, is negotiating a similar deal with France.

Read more ....

My Comment: A must read commentary from Amir Teheri

Committing To Cut

A Trident missile at liftoff. Photograph: AP (Image from The Guardian)

Cutting the Stockpile -- In From The Cold

Say this for Hillary Clinton: she knows how to follow her marching orders.

Apparently, all those years with Bill were excellent preparation for carrying out ill-advised or foolhardy tasks. From that ill-fated national health care plan to ignoring her husband's many indiscretions, Ms. Clinton is adept at handling chores that most of us would summarily reject.

Consider her newest priority as Secretary of State. Ms. Clinton has informed Congress (and her staff) that she wants early talks with Russia on "sharply reducing" the size of both nation's nuclear arsenals. The goal is a replacement for the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which limits the U.S. and Russia to 6,000 nuclear warheads each.

Some wonder if a new accord is even necessary--but both countries are far below that total. The U.S. stockpile is believed to be at 2,300 warheads, and the Russian inventory is even lower. But Secretary Clinton and President Barack Obama are aiming for even greater reductions. How low are they willing to go? The Administration hasn't said--at least publicly. But, as with other Obama proposals, there are grave risks that may outweigh potential benefits.

Read more ....

My Comment: Another must read post and commentary from "In From The Cold".

The reason why they are doing this is .... for the politics. Nothing more. And the Clintons are grandmasters at politics.

The greater concern is that military and defense policy .... including the future of America's strategic nuclear weapon's program .... is now out of the hands of the military and in the hands of political operatives and their masters. I can only assume that Leon Panetta's nomination to the Director's chair of the CIA is being done to produce the same result and intent.

This is troublesome to the extreme.

U.S. Security and Defense policies functioned best when it was treated as a joint venture. Both sides bringing their expertise and understanding to the table.

Sigh .... no more now.