That's interesting about South Africa. Ben's analysis is also interesting, and generally convincing (to me at least). I do find it surprising that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction has been so quickly thrown in the bin. The implication of the west being cowed by nuclear threats is that MAD has gone and with it the stability that kept the cold war cold for so long. The new doctrine feels precarious by comparison.
Thank you both for this. Very interesting story about South Africa. And it demonstrates clearly why nuclear weapons are useful even when not being used. So is the case with Russias weapons. They must be taken into account, and that is very much true of the «third party», those outside the conflict. They very much want to avoid the taboo being broken, lest they find themselves involved. However, from Ukraines point of view the situation is different. They are exposed, no matter what. They have to take it into account, but what can they do? They have to defend themselves and conventional weapons are quite damaging. So they need to fight, also under the threat of nukes. And the usefulness of nukes is less than the usefulness of the threats of using nukes (although Medvedev is completely ignored these days). Russia will not use nukes, but continue to threaten.
"the global non-proliferation regime begins to fracture"
That regime shattered in 2014, when the US and UK failed to honour their commitment to Ukrainian security - commitments purchased at the cost of a large nuclear arsenal. everyone knows that the only effective nuclear deterrent is one held and controlled by the threatened country.
What commitment was that? The Budapest memorandum did not commit either country to military defense of Ukraine. It did commit them not to invade Ukraine themselves, but AFAIK neither has. If you think there was a military defense commitment that was not honored, then provide a link to the relevant document, with a clear indication of where in the document is the commitment.
Serious defense analysts came to this conclusion decades ago. The high cost and small numbers of available tactical nukes force the wound be user to conduct extensive planning for even a small nuclear strike. In practice a highly centralized military such as Russia can't respond to a target of opportunity in a timely manner. Without a large reserve in place to exploit any gaps the strike would create, the potential benefit to the attacker drops dramatically. On the transparent 21st Century battlefield, the formation of such a large exploitation force will be noticed and the defender will adjust his forces accordingly.
Decades of planning, experiment, exercises, and analysis have demonstrated Ben's point. The active nuclear battlefield envisioned by advocates during the Cold War is gone, if it ever existed.
Let me illustrate this: During the Cold War, the United States had the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan). From 1960, this was the plan for a comprehensive retaliatory strike against the Soviet Union and its allies if the Warsaw Pact escalated a nuclear attack on Western Europe. From 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis) to 1991, the SIOP covered around 16,000 targets in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries. There were various variants of the SIOP, each based on different scenarios, for example:
– a "limited strike" against strategic military facilities (missile silos, nuclear weapons depots, bomber bases, submarine bases, early warning radars, command bunkers). Cities were excluded, as the goal was only to eliminate the enemy as a nuclear power.
– a "more comprehensive strike" against military strategic AND military industrial targets (e.g., tank factories, munitions factories, aircraft factories, shipyards).
– a "full-scale strike" against military, industrial, and civilian targets, which would have included urban areas around major cities, i.e., railway hubs, road links, civilian airports, etc.
In short: The SIOP was based on its versions of various escalation scenarios, and there were options ranging from "eliminating the enemy at the strategic level" to "completely annihilating the enemy."
The Soviets were aware of the SIOP (and thus its objectives) and, in turn, developed plans for a nuclear-led war at the strategic level. All this led to the "Perimetr" system, known in the West as "Dead Hand," which is still active today: In the event that the Russian leadership is eliminated, "Perimetr" is designed to detect a nuclear strike using seismic, light, radioactivity, and pressure sensors and, even if the command elements are completely destroyed, to initiate a fully automatic launch of Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles by sending a pre-entered command from the Armed Forces' GenShtab to the missile silos and strategic submarines at sea.
The SIOP was continuously updated until 2001. As part of the disarmament treaties, targets were also removed (e.g., disused bases, decommissioned defense factories), until "only" 2,500 targets remained. After that, the SIOP was replaced by OPLAN 8044 (Operational Plan), because it was believed that the "good old days" had been left behind, which had been initiated by the signing of various disarmament treaties. Not much is known about the OPLAN, but it is known that there is a "counterforce" option (i.e., a counterstrike) against strategic military facilities. The OPLAN doesn't just apply to Russia; here, too, there are various variants, including against China, North Korea, possibly even Pakistan, and a nuclear-armed Iran.
With regard to Russia, the "smallest" option in the OPLAN includes around 300 nuclear warheads against around 60 strategically relevant targets. How did I arrive at that? Cold logic. You can figure out the targets yourself, because the locations of the Russian bases are known; you can even look them up on Google Maps. I "planned it out" on two or three free nights by poring over maps and looking at satellite images. With NUKEMAP (a version of Google Maps that lets you see the effects of nuclear weapons), you can finally "simulate" the whole thing.
We live in the information age, and the Russian GenShtab knows this too (assuming the GRU did its job and didn't screw up as badly as it did in Ukraine!). This means: If Putin were to use even a single nuclear weapon against a NATO country, he would have between 5 and 12 million dead 30 minutes later, and his already ailing economy would be ruined! And if Putin truly considers the nuclear option, it's more likely that he'll be removed either by a coup from the GenShtab or as part of an "internal operation" by the FSB or the GRU.
Whether in the US or Russia, the people in command or oversight of nuclear weapons are no idiots. They undergo decades of training, they practice the procedures over and over again, and they KNOW the effects and aftereffects of these weapons. They are professionals who dedicate their lives to planning the use of these weapons while simultaneously preventing it.
The whole point of conventional armed forces is, after all, to be able to wage and win a war without ending up as a pile of radioactive ash. Putin completely screwed up this conventional option in Ukraine, but for over a year and a half, he has nevertheless preferred to lose a few hundred tanks, a few dozen fighter jets, a few ships, and a few thousand soldiers rather than risk using nuclear weapons.
And all his threats about using nuclear weapons are directed exclusively against Germany, because Putin knows full well that the gasping Germans, like no other nation, panic as soon as the word "nuclear" is mentioned. This is psychological warfare of the most primitive kind.
a very good addendum to discussion of nuclear war is surprisingly provided by late Stanley Kubrick in his magnum post Dr Strangelove. I cannot express how seriously and wholeheartedly I recommend this strategic document to all writing about possible use of nuclear weapons, especially against Soviet Union, or Russia, today.
It is made clear, what seems not to be understood by commenter, that no option exists of nuclear war against a major nuclear power (US, Russia, China) that does not include a major retaliatory strike.
If a major power (US, Russia, China) ever intends a nuclear strike on another major nuclear power it can only done as be an overwhelming first strike, in a hope that enemy counter attacking abilities will be successfully completely obliterated. Anything less successful will undoubtedly lead to retaliatory strike that would cause enormous human loss and material damage to the original attacker.
It is usually US or broadly Western thinkers who, from time to time, seem to forget this part of the MAD nuclear doctrine and embark on complicated scenarios that try to explain that somehow US could get away with nuclear attack on Russia.
No, it is not possible. Any American nuclear attack on Russia will lead to nuclear strike on US.
You have it somehow backwards -> It's not West/NATO talking about nuclear attack on russia, it's russia which at every suggestion of any use of (conventional) force or conflict with NATO forces immediately threatens to nuke this or that Western city (like that will be end it and everybody will freeze in horror, unable to do anything from fear that another city could be obliterated next).
I'm not aware of any similar threats made by the NATO, like "if you try to cross Suwalki gap, we will nuke Moscow", it's always "you try to do that and we will destroy your invading units through (conventional) military methods".
So yeah, one side has this childish and irrational mentality, like launching nuclear strike against major population of the opposing block won't trigger immediate retaliatory strike, without any hesitation -> and it's certainly not NATO/West.
But of course, it's all psychological "unpredictable madman" theatre which is unfortunately working way too well against Western "Nuclear taboo" psyche.
please do not be too concentrated on US and THEM. We, Europeans , and generally humans on Earth are in this together.
And yes it is normal to hold a different opinion. But as usual, facts are sacred, opinions are free.
MAD doctrine and its ramifications are extremely important for every European citizen, but also every human on Earth.
There is nothing of the sort of unpredictable madman in MAD doctrine, it is very predictable, logical.
One may play the role of unpredictable madman, in general politics, but not with nuclear weapons.
US and NATO had for the long years of Cold War made it clear that if Western Europe is attacked and in danger of being overrun by Soviet tanks, US may use nuclear power.
Russia made the same point, if Ukraine with its western allies, or West/NATO become an existential danger to Russian nation or state, Russia may use nuclear weapons.
Translation of the current situation is not extremely complicated; if you, whoever you are, Britain, France, Germany, US, attack Russia you are running the risk of Russia attacking you back.
Nothing unpredictable, or mad here.
I wrote my comment because MaFri wrote almost a whole novel about US plans to use nuclear weapons in somewhat limited way....SIOP, OPPLAN
all based on obvious assumption that use of limited number of nuclear warheads (although his idea of using 60 nuclear bombs is not exactly limited...) would somehow be tolerated,
It is on one hand a culture of boasting - immature, like kids quarrelling who has bigger dick, (Americans are always the biggest dicks) on the other hand it is an attempt to normalise use of nuclear weapons, which is bad, and sad, too.
It is important to say clearly and repeatedly that no one, and especially not US will be able to use nuclear weapon against a major nuclear power and get away with it unscathed.
US will be immediately, seriously, probably irreparably damaged in any nuclear war with a major nuclear power. (Let's name them Russia, China, but also France, Israel, India) US could probably eliminate Great Britain, or North Korea without fear of immediate retaliation, but at an enormous reputation cost. Erasing Pakistan would carry a risk of a terrible nuclear revenge. Israel has a Samson plan that targets major Western capital with nuclear weapons even in case when Israel loses the war and considers the cause to be inadequate support from the West. All is incredibly risky.
China is enlarging its nuclear arsenal, because US is unwilling to solve differences in opinion with major powers without resorting to violence. In a few years China will be al pari with US and Russia.
Then, perhaps, US will be willing to negotiate an nuclear arms control deal, something US is not willing to do now.
I understand your concern, but Russian nuclear doctrine still precludes preventive use of nuclear weapons, as opposed to US and NATO.
So regarding nuclear war, objectively, you are in. greater danger from NATO and Israel than Russia.
Thanks Tom, thanks Ben. Not long ago, in the comments after one of Tom's posts, I asked: "Why did the Ukrainian Armed Forces allow the unimpeded withdrawal of Russian troops from Kherson in 2022?" The answer was: "They were afraid of a nuclear strike." This contrasts with the claim that Ukrainian officials downplayed the threat of nuclear weapons use.
From the US point of view, I think the fear is not of the effect of Russian nukes onUkraine, but the fear of having to mount a response to Russia, and all the angst what that would be, and igniting a cycle of retaliation. Thus, better to be safe and not even go there.
This analysis seems to rely on a forgone conclusion of how things would happen if Russia used tactical nukes. I don't see that as a matter of fact. Even if US doctrine would dictate some response we know who is in the White House and that already people have been using the argument that agitating Russia is crazy given their nuclear arsenal. How much more so after they use a weapon?
I agree that Russian use a nuke would likely not benefit them due to repercussions, but it could also start chains of event that are very dangerous. So I think it foolish to dismiss the possibility out of hand. But I guess Tom sort of gave an example that they can't be ignored as well if I am reading the conclusion right.
It's very improbable scenario that Russia would use tactical nukes for an attack. More likely scenario is that they may use nukes as the last resort when they will be loosing ground. I think no NATO politician is considering that. But some may be afraid of Russia using nukes when they start loosing, because Putin claims each occupied land to be Russian land, hence his nuclear doctrine allows to use nukes when it's attacked.
E.g. ZSU entering Crimea (and Criema is perceived as Russian land by most of Russians) Russia may claim that this is attack to the Russian land and use a tactical nuke to stop ZSU. The strategical loss would not be so big, because in this scenario they would loose most of other occuped land already. And the international reputation damage could be low because they would frame is at ZSU+NATO attack to sovereign Russian land.
How should USA and NATO react then? That would not do much direct harm in terms destruction and radiation, but there's a high risk Russia could be successful in the international politics and keep support of their allies (China especially). This would open the Pandora's box and be a step towards a possible bigger nuclear conflict.
That's interesting about South Africa. Ben's analysis is also interesting, and generally convincing (to me at least). I do find it surprising that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction has been so quickly thrown in the bin. The implication of the west being cowed by nuclear threats is that MAD has gone and with it the stability that kept the cold war cold for so long. The new doctrine feels precarious by comparison.
MAD still exists. It is the real of strategic nuclear weapons, in the the tens of megatons - not the tens of kilotons of tactical nukes.
Its also the hundreds of mirvs that will not get intercepted by any means
Thank you both for this. Very interesting story about South Africa. And it demonstrates clearly why nuclear weapons are useful even when not being used. So is the case with Russias weapons. They must be taken into account, and that is very much true of the «third party», those outside the conflict. They very much want to avoid the taboo being broken, lest they find themselves involved. However, from Ukraines point of view the situation is different. They are exposed, no matter what. They have to take it into account, but what can they do? They have to defend themselves and conventional weapons are quite damaging. So they need to fight, also under the threat of nukes. And the usefulness of nukes is less than the usefulness of the threats of using nukes (although Medvedev is completely ignored these days). Russia will not use nukes, but continue to threaten.
"the global non-proliferation regime begins to fracture"
That regime shattered in 2014, when the US and UK failed to honour their commitment to Ukrainian security - commitments purchased at the cost of a large nuclear arsenal. everyone knows that the only effective nuclear deterrent is one held and controlled by the threatened country.
What commitment was that? The Budapest memorandum did not commit either country to military defense of Ukraine. It did commit them not to invade Ukraine themselves, but AFAIK neither has. If you think there was a military defense commitment that was not honored, then provide a link to the relevant document, with a clear indication of where in the document is the commitment.
Serious defense analysts came to this conclusion decades ago. The high cost and small numbers of available tactical nukes force the wound be user to conduct extensive planning for even a small nuclear strike. In practice a highly centralized military such as Russia can't respond to a target of opportunity in a timely manner. Without a large reserve in place to exploit any gaps the strike would create, the potential benefit to the attacker drops dramatically. On the transparent 21st Century battlefield, the formation of such a large exploitation force will be noticed and the defender will adjust his forces accordingly.
Decades of planning, experiment, exercises, and analysis have demonstrated Ben's point. The active nuclear battlefield envisioned by advocates during the Cold War is gone, if it ever existed.
Great points!
Let me illustrate this: During the Cold War, the United States had the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan). From 1960, this was the plan for a comprehensive retaliatory strike against the Soviet Union and its allies if the Warsaw Pact escalated a nuclear attack on Western Europe. From 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis) to 1991, the SIOP covered around 16,000 targets in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries. There were various variants of the SIOP, each based on different scenarios, for example:
– a "limited strike" against strategic military facilities (missile silos, nuclear weapons depots, bomber bases, submarine bases, early warning radars, command bunkers). Cities were excluded, as the goal was only to eliminate the enemy as a nuclear power.
– a "more comprehensive strike" against military strategic AND military industrial targets (e.g., tank factories, munitions factories, aircraft factories, shipyards).
– a "full-scale strike" against military, industrial, and civilian targets, which would have included urban areas around major cities, i.e., railway hubs, road links, civilian airports, etc.
In short: The SIOP was based on its versions of various escalation scenarios, and there were options ranging from "eliminating the enemy at the strategic level" to "completely annihilating the enemy."
The Soviets were aware of the SIOP (and thus its objectives) and, in turn, developed plans for a nuclear-led war at the strategic level. All this led to the "Perimetr" system, known in the West as "Dead Hand," which is still active today: In the event that the Russian leadership is eliminated, "Perimetr" is designed to detect a nuclear strike using seismic, light, radioactivity, and pressure sensors and, even if the command elements are completely destroyed, to initiate a fully automatic launch of Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles by sending a pre-entered command from the Armed Forces' GenShtab to the missile silos and strategic submarines at sea.
The SIOP was continuously updated until 2001. As part of the disarmament treaties, targets were also removed (e.g., disused bases, decommissioned defense factories), until "only" 2,500 targets remained. After that, the SIOP was replaced by OPLAN 8044 (Operational Plan), because it was believed that the "good old days" had been left behind, which had been initiated by the signing of various disarmament treaties. Not much is known about the OPLAN, but it is known that there is a "counterforce" option (i.e., a counterstrike) against strategic military facilities. The OPLAN doesn't just apply to Russia; here, too, there are various variants, including against China, North Korea, possibly even Pakistan, and a nuclear-armed Iran.
With regard to Russia, the "smallest" option in the OPLAN includes around 300 nuclear warheads against around 60 strategically relevant targets. How did I arrive at that? Cold logic. You can figure out the targets yourself, because the locations of the Russian bases are known; you can even look them up on Google Maps. I "planned it out" on two or three free nights by poring over maps and looking at satellite images. With NUKEMAP (a version of Google Maps that lets you see the effects of nuclear weapons), you can finally "simulate" the whole thing.
We live in the information age, and the Russian GenShtab knows this too (assuming the GRU did its job and didn't screw up as badly as it did in Ukraine!). This means: If Putin were to use even a single nuclear weapon against a NATO country, he would have between 5 and 12 million dead 30 minutes later, and his already ailing economy would be ruined! And if Putin truly considers the nuclear option, it's more likely that he'll be removed either by a coup from the GenShtab or as part of an "internal operation" by the FSB or the GRU.
Whether in the US or Russia, the people in command or oversight of nuclear weapons are no idiots. They undergo decades of training, they practice the procedures over and over again, and they KNOW the effects and aftereffects of these weapons. They are professionals who dedicate their lives to planning the use of these weapons while simultaneously preventing it.
The whole point of conventional armed forces is, after all, to be able to wage and win a war without ending up as a pile of radioactive ash. Putin completely screwed up this conventional option in Ukraine, but for over a year and a half, he has nevertheless preferred to lose a few hundred tanks, a few dozen fighter jets, a few ships, and a few thousand soldiers rather than risk using nuclear weapons.
And all his threats about using nuclear weapons are directed exclusively against Germany, because Putin knows full well that the gasping Germans, like no other nation, panic as soon as the word "nuclear" is mentioned. This is psychological warfare of the most primitive kind.
MarFri
a very good addendum to discussion of nuclear war is surprisingly provided by late Stanley Kubrick in his magnum post Dr Strangelove. I cannot express how seriously and wholeheartedly I recommend this strategic document to all writing about possible use of nuclear weapons, especially against Soviet Union, or Russia, today.
It is made clear, what seems not to be understood by commenter, that no option exists of nuclear war against a major nuclear power (US, Russia, China) that does not include a major retaliatory strike.
If a major power (US, Russia, China) ever intends a nuclear strike on another major nuclear power it can only done as be an overwhelming first strike, in a hope that enemy counter attacking abilities will be successfully completely obliterated. Anything less successful will undoubtedly lead to retaliatory strike that would cause enormous human loss and material damage to the original attacker.
It is usually US or broadly Western thinkers who, from time to time, seem to forget this part of the MAD nuclear doctrine and embark on complicated scenarios that try to explain that somehow US could get away with nuclear attack on Russia.
No, it is not possible. Any American nuclear attack on Russia will lead to nuclear strike on US.
You have it somehow backwards -> It's not West/NATO talking about nuclear attack on russia, it's russia which at every suggestion of any use of (conventional) force or conflict with NATO forces immediately threatens to nuke this or that Western city (like that will be end it and everybody will freeze in horror, unable to do anything from fear that another city could be obliterated next).
I'm not aware of any similar threats made by the NATO, like "if you try to cross Suwalki gap, we will nuke Moscow", it's always "you try to do that and we will destroy your invading units through (conventional) military methods".
So yeah, one side has this childish and irrational mentality, like launching nuclear strike against major population of the opposing block won't trigger immediate retaliatory strike, without any hesitation -> and it's certainly not NATO/West.
But of course, it's all psychological "unpredictable madman" theatre which is unfortunately working way too well against Western "Nuclear taboo" psyche.
Jan,
please do not be too concentrated on US and THEM. We, Europeans , and generally humans on Earth are in this together.
And yes it is normal to hold a different opinion. But as usual, facts are sacred, opinions are free.
MAD doctrine and its ramifications are extremely important for every European citizen, but also every human on Earth.
There is nothing of the sort of unpredictable madman in MAD doctrine, it is very predictable, logical.
One may play the role of unpredictable madman, in general politics, but not with nuclear weapons.
US and NATO had for the long years of Cold War made it clear that if Western Europe is attacked and in danger of being overrun by Soviet tanks, US may use nuclear power.
Russia made the same point, if Ukraine with its western allies, or West/NATO become an existential danger to Russian nation or state, Russia may use nuclear weapons.
Translation of the current situation is not extremely complicated; if you, whoever you are, Britain, France, Germany, US, attack Russia you are running the risk of Russia attacking you back.
Nothing unpredictable, or mad here.
I wrote my comment because MaFri wrote almost a whole novel about US plans to use nuclear weapons in somewhat limited way....SIOP, OPPLAN
all based on obvious assumption that use of limited number of nuclear warheads (although his idea of using 60 nuclear bombs is not exactly limited...) would somehow be tolerated,
It is on one hand a culture of boasting - immature, like kids quarrelling who has bigger dick, (Americans are always the biggest dicks) on the other hand it is an attempt to normalise use of nuclear weapons, which is bad, and sad, too.
It is important to say clearly and repeatedly that no one, and especially not US will be able to use nuclear weapon against a major nuclear power and get away with it unscathed.
US will be immediately, seriously, probably irreparably damaged in any nuclear war with a major nuclear power. (Let's name them Russia, China, but also France, Israel, India) US could probably eliminate Great Britain, or North Korea without fear of immediate retaliation, but at an enormous reputation cost. Erasing Pakistan would carry a risk of a terrible nuclear revenge. Israel has a Samson plan that targets major Western capital with nuclear weapons even in case when Israel loses the war and considers the cause to be inadequate support from the West. All is incredibly risky.
China is enlarging its nuclear arsenal, because US is unwilling to solve differences in opinion with major powers without resorting to violence. In a few years China will be al pari with US and Russia.
Then, perhaps, US will be willing to negotiate an nuclear arms control deal, something US is not willing to do now.
I understand your concern, but Russian nuclear doctrine still precludes preventive use of nuclear weapons, as opposed to US and NATO.
So regarding nuclear war, objectively, you are in. greater danger from NATO and Israel than Russia.
Thanks Tom, thanks Ben. Not long ago, in the comments after one of Tom's posts, I asked: "Why did the Ukrainian Armed Forces allow the unimpeded withdrawal of Russian troops from Kherson in 2022?" The answer was: "They were afraid of a nuclear strike." This contrasts with the claim that Ukrainian officials downplayed the threat of nuclear weapons use.
There is always the possibility they were strong-armed/coerced to allow it by outside (Western) power.
From the US point of view, I think the fear is not of the effect of Russian nukes onUkraine, but the fear of having to mount a response to Russia, and all the angst what that would be, and igniting a cycle of retaliation. Thus, better to be safe and not even go there.
This analysis seems to rely on a forgone conclusion of how things would happen if Russia used tactical nukes. I don't see that as a matter of fact. Even if US doctrine would dictate some response we know who is in the White House and that already people have been using the argument that agitating Russia is crazy given their nuclear arsenal. How much more so after they use a weapon?
I agree that Russian use a nuke would likely not benefit them due to repercussions, but it could also start chains of event that are very dangerous. So I think it foolish to dismiss the possibility out of hand. But I guess Tom sort of gave an example that they can't be ignored as well if I am reading the conclusion right.
Good analysis.
It's very improbable scenario that Russia would use tactical nukes for an attack. More likely scenario is that they may use nukes as the last resort when they will be loosing ground. I think no NATO politician is considering that. But some may be afraid of Russia using nukes when they start loosing, because Putin claims each occupied land to be Russian land, hence his nuclear doctrine allows to use nukes when it's attacked.
E.g. ZSU entering Crimea (and Criema is perceived as Russian land by most of Russians) Russia may claim that this is attack to the Russian land and use a tactical nuke to stop ZSU. The strategical loss would not be so big, because in this scenario they would loose most of other occuped land already. And the international reputation damage could be low because they would frame is at ZSU+NATO attack to sovereign Russian land.
How should USA and NATO react then? That would not do much direct harm in terms destruction and radiation, but there's a high risk Russia could be successful in the international politics and keep support of their allies (China especially). This would open the Pandora's box and be a step towards a possible bigger nuclear conflict.