The Russo-Ukrainian War may soon produce a major U.S.-Russian nuclear crisis. Despite President Joe Biden’s occasional cautionary remarks that he understands the risk of nuclear escalation in the event of a direct clash between U.S. and Russian forces, there are other ways that a very dangerous...
nationalinterest.org
Barry Posen at The National Interest concludes: "United States needs to carefully limit its military and political objectives, and the means it employs to achieve them." Here is the core of his argument in "Can Russia and the West Survive a Nuclear Crisis in Ukraine?"
"It is not hard to imagine what a “theater nuclear” war plan might attempt. The Russians have surely already drawn one up. They would identify their problem as the fountain of U.S. and European weapons reaching Ukrainian forces at the front. They have attempted in recent days to “interdict” this flow of weaponry by attacking railroad infrastructure and airports. But historically, even very good air forces have found interdiction to be a challenge. And Russia only has a mediocre air force. Nuclear strikes with “low yield” weapons on bridges, railroads, and airfields would make it much harder for Ukrainian forces to resupply themselves. Selected strikes against Ukrainian military forces in the field would take the pressure off Russian units. Tactical nuclear targeting was once a high art in both NATO and the Soviet Union. Common sense and a map suggest that even a half dozen attacks could make a difference, but given that today’s Russian army is clearly the descendant of the Soviet Army, their style of military planning would suggest several dozen targets. Ukraine has no nuclear weapons; it cannot respond in kind. Ukraine is not a NATO ally; no other country is committed to the nuclear defense of Ukraine. The Russian leadership may, if the conventional war goes badly enough, reach for a nuclear trump card. We should think hard about what even their preparations for such an attack would set in motion.
... Russia would face difficult choices were it to consider tactical nuclear strikes. Moscow might hope to prepare such strikes in secret, but it seems unlikely. U.S. satellites watch their nuclear bunkers and nuclear units. Unusual activity will set off alarm bells....The Russians need to worry about what the United States will do with this warning.
Among other things, the Russians need to worry about the rest of their nuclear forces. The mobilization of their tactical forces starts a nuclear crisis well before any weapons are launched. Will their strategic nuclear forces remain inert and unalerted in order to convey a sense of limitation to us? Or will they worry that we will worry, and alert our strategic nuclear forces before they can alert theirs? This matters because more of our forces are “ready” at any one time than theirs. If they delay, and the matter escalates, they know they will be at a disadvantage. Among other qualities of the Russian nuclear forces is the fact that most of their nuclear-powered ballistic missile-carrying submarines (SSBNs) are in port. They rely on these weapons, once they are at sea, to endure a feared U.S. nuclear first strike and survive to retaliate.....
....Even if the Russians were very restrained in the alerting of their strategic nuclear forces in support of their theater nuclear strike, the United States would be sorely tempted to do something to try to deter an expected Russian attack. But one wonders what American planners will dream up. They failed to deter the Russian attack on Ukraine with the threat of extreme sanctions and the implied threat of additional arms supplies to Ukraine and the very strong likelihood of a NATO buildup on its eastern borders. Russia clearly thinks its vital interests are at stake. The United States won’t make nuclear threats, but it will be tempted to make some kind of threat.
....Thus, even the preparation of a Russian battlefield use of nuclear weapons would likely produce at least some preparations for a strategic nuclear exchange. But the aftermath of nuclear attacks will be even worse. The United States will be grasping for tools with which to punish the Russians. It is unlikely that U.S. military planners will be able to assure the president that this is the last Russian move. Instead, U.S. military leaders may advise additional U.S. nuclear preparations. Even if the United States is quite judicious in what those preparations might be, they will surely elicit additional moves from the Russians.
.... In sum, if the Russians even begin the preparations for a localized use of small numbers of “low yield” theater weapons, a process will be set in motion that brings both sides’ intelligence and military forces of all kinds, all along the Russian periphery, to much higher levels of activity and alert. Candidly, if I were the Russians, this alone would deter me. But there is no reason to believe that they will be so restrained. Strategic nuclear forces would themselves likely increase their readiness to some extent. The two sides have not managed a bilateral nuclear crisis in a very long time, and one does not really wish to find out if they can easily recover their Cold War vintage crisis management skills. To avoid such an experiment, the United States needs to carefully limit its military and political objectives, and the means it employs to achieve them."
Some know the differences some don't. Once again if you believe most of his military has been destroyed in Ukraine conflict, I suggest you study more on the subject and also study the difference between a declaration of war and what is currently happening. GOODLUCK.
