Thread-topic: We shouldn’t be even this close to nuclear war - The Boston Globe
Stephen Kinzer is the historian/journalist whom I respect above any other. And this article of his is a must read, and one of the most “balanced" that one can find in the USOA (given
how similar our policies have been to the USSR of old, torture, military aggression, etc., why not a similar abbreviation?).
I fully agree with this:
"By arming Ukraine and seeking to smack Russia, we may be sleepwalking toward the ultimate nightmare."
My only quibble is he neglects a scenario where the potential for a US first use of a nuclear device could/would arise, though, given
what we’ve seen of how weak the Russians are in fact (remember how in 1990 we were told the Iraqis had the fourth strongest military in the world? All US propaganda, as we found out), is increasingly unlikely. But hypothetically,
had the shrill claims that the Russians intended to take over a part of Europe beyond Ukraine, or even yet if they move into western Ukraine, and had they appeared capable of that, as they always do in the fevered minds of the people at AEI, CNAS, Heritage,
Hoover, the Spectator, et al., the two paragraphs below applies as well to the US military. Just like how I was informed by someone who had access to information that we would use “battlefield nukes” a day or two before we launched the Gulf War, in the event
our offensive failed, and the “fourth strongest military in the world” suddenly presented a threat to our forces in Saudi Arabia. Although we knew how ridiculous that was as our Theatre Material Management Center was already providing MRE’s to starving Iraqi soldiers
on the “front lines,” by way of the Saudis, as I had been told by fellow NCOs.
So this could as well read:
"America’s doctrine of “defensive use of battlefield nukes” is specifically designed for these situations. It says that if America is
losing, they will use nuclear weapons first. The military believes in this doctrine, which means that if Biden gives the order, they will likely obey.”
"America’s arsenal of battlefield nuclear weapons makes the Ukraine crisis uniquely
dangerous. The firing of a single nuclear-tipped rocket — to destroy a Ukrainian town (occupied by Russian military), to wipe out an enemy combat formation, or even simply as a demonstration — might well set off quick and disastrous reactions."
Of course the US doesn’t engage in offensive behavior which could give rise to a “legitimate” Russian concern for a US/Ukraine offensive, unless one pays attention and recognizes we have been since
shortly after the end of the Cold War, still in the 1990s with ideological declarations of war coming from the same people who were always central to US militarism, and opposed the efforts of Reagan for detente from within and without his administration, and continued
the “fight” as the Project for the New American Century, which with hindsight, and more knowledge, must be deemed a variety of US fascism with its explicit promotion of military aggression by the US.
Why would anyone want to shield recognition that what their plans were constituted an identical ideology as what Mussolini articulated? And it became our national ideology as we’ve seen these last 21 years or so, as I’m sure other
nation’s intelligence services have noticed, except we identify the most radical of this sort as kind of our “National Bird” (and I don’t mean the excellent movie by the same name), is so illustrative of exactly what I’m saying, including keeping in imprisonemt
as a political prisoner, Daniel Hale, the courageous young man who revealed our fascist style program of assassinations.
Yet time after time, we “rally ‘round the flag,” and accept the myth we create that it is our “enemies” who present a threat to the “Liberal International Order,” that we profess to
have created, and maintain, with it necessary to annihilate its/our “enemies” in another war which we must “regretfully” go off and fight. Pardon me, I wrote more than I intended, again, but our war fanatics/fascists have once again taken us to the brink of
nuclear war and its way past time that Americans get p*ssed off about it and at least begin calling them by their “true name,” and stop shielding them from the same kind of condemnation that their WW II predecessors (the Axis) deserved/deserve.
Or, we’re complicit with them, like the proverbial “Good German.”
P.S. As I contemplate a potential scenario, and Europeans who would be the first victims, a few of whom are friends/family, I don’t believe it would be a "tit for tat” escalation, but
given US proclivities as the Rand report below illustrates, I believe it is more likely the US might “feint” in a way to provoke a “first use” by Russia with a battlefield nuke, followed immediately by "massive retaliation” by the US against Russia, sent with
hopes that we get enough of their strategic nuclear weapons that they can’t massively retaliate against us. And that’s not even considering what China would be forced to do.
Rather, these steps are conceived of as measures that would lead Russia to compete in domains or regions where the United States has
a competitive advantage, causing Russia to overextend itself militarily or economically or causing the regime to lose domestic and/or international prestige and influence.
The United States and Russia should both promise never to use nuclear weapons first.
By
Stephen Kinzer Contributor,Updated
March 9, 2022, 3:00 a.m.
A
protestor in Barcelona, Spain, held a sign reading "Save all Europe from a nuclear catastrophe" during a demonstration in support of Ukraine last Sunday.LLUIS GENE/AFP
via Getty Images
Could the Russian invasion of Ukraine escalate to nuclear war? It’s unlikely but not impossible. That should terrify us.
The world is closer to nuclear combat now than it has been at any other time in the last half-century. Both Russia and the United States have developed tactical nuclear weapons designed
for use on battlefields. Some of them are one-third as powerful as the atomic bombs with which the United States incinerated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
Soon after Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his army to invade Ukraine last month, he took the wildly irresponsible step of publicly announcing that he was placing his nation’s
nuclear forces on “high combat alert.” He has made clear that he considers a hostile Ukraine to be a mortal threat to his country. If his forces do not quickly win this war, and especially if other countries come to Ukraine’s aid, he may be tempted to use
his full arsenal — including nuclear weapons. I doubt he would do it, but I also doubted he would invade Ukraine in the first place.
President Biden deserves credit for not replying to Putin’s nuclear threats with counterthreats. Yet Americans are now caught in a spiral of emotion even more intense than the anti-Saddam
frenzy that preceded our invasion of Iraq. Relentless images of Russian bombing and suffering Ukrainians provoke outrage and demands for punishing revenge. That can lead us to lose sight of the terrible stakes. By arming Ukraine and seeking to smack Russia,
we may be sleepwalking toward the ultimate nightmare.
Using nuclear weapons in Ukraine would break a longstanding taboo and turn Putin into the most despised world leader since Hitler. More important, the situation could quickly escalate.
When the Pentagon conducts “war games” based on this possibility, the result is always the same. In these simulations, one side uses a battlefield nuclear weapon, the other side responds in kind, and soon both countries’ cities are in ashes.
“It escalates; it doesn’t stop,” says Joseph Cirincione, a fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, in Washington, who is a leading student of nuclear weaponry. “Each
side thinks their use will be decisive. There’s no way to avoid these risks. And if Putin feels he’s losing, the risk increases. Russia’s doctrine of ‘escalate to de-escalate’ is specifically designed for these situations. It says that if Russia is losing,
they will use nuclear weapons first. The military believes in this doctrine, which means that if Putin gives the order, they will likely obey.”
Russia’s arsenal of battlefield nuclear weapons makes the Ukraine crisis uniquely dangerous. The firing of a single nuclear-tipped rocket — to destroy a Ukrainian town, to wipe out
an enemy combat formation, or even simply as a demonstration — might well set off quick and disastrous reactions.
The Western response to this invasion has been strong and nearly unanimous. Some of it is symbolic virtue signaling that borders on silliness. Russian conductors have been fired from
the Munich Philharmonic and La Scala in Milan after refusing to condemn the invasion, and the International Cat Federation has banned Russian cats from competition. Other reactions, however, are deadly serious and could affect global politics for decades.
Harsh economic sanctions on Russia will reshape life in what until last month seemed to be emerging as a stable and prosperous globalized society. Major oil companies have pulled out
of Russia despite its position as one of the world’s leading oil producers. Germany is sharply increasing its defense budget. Finland and Sweden are considering applying for NATO membership. Switzerland broke with its longstanding policy of neutrality to adopt
the European Union’s potent sanctions against Russia. Each of these steps may be seen as reasonable. Together, they could give Putin the sense that he is being forced into a corner and has no choice but to use his ultimate weapon.
In 2008, four ancient veterans of geopolitical conflict — Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Sam Nunn, and William Perry — warned that the steps the world was taking to address the threat
of nuclear war were “not adequate to the danger.” The danger has increased since then. “The goal of a world free of nuclear weapons is like the top of a very tall mountain,” the four statesmen wrote, drawing on more than a century of combined experience in
dealing with nuclear security. “But the risks from continuing to go down the mountain or standing pat are too real to ignore.” Yet we do ignore them. More Americans seem afraid of taking the COVID vaccine than are afraid of nuclear war.
Both Russian and American military planners have placed nuclear combat on their list of possible tools in wartime. It’s right there on the “threat
continuum” after covert action, sanctions, cyberattacks and conventional war — as if it’s simply another step up the coercive ladder. Until we remove that step, the danger of holocaust will hang over our planet.
Nuclear war is beyond our lived experience and even our imagination. The prospect seems distant and improbable. It isn’t. One way to lessen the immediate danger would be for the United
States and NATO to declare unequivocally that we will never use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and ask Russia to pledge the same. Then, if we emerge from this crisis alive, all nuclear powers should devote themselves urgently to assuring that we never reach such
a dangerous threshold again.
The responsibility lies mainly with Russia and the United States, which have more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. If these two countries could assure each other that
neither would ever be the first to use those weapons, the world would instantly become far safer.
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
