No Surface Warfare Officers, though. Nuclear capable systems became the sole province of Submariners, and they do not hesitate to take the keys from boats and the SWFs for failing nuclear inspections.
USAF still has 3 missile (i.e. ICBM) wings with a combined 420 missile silos and apparently an authorized launch vehicle count of 400 (leaving 5% float for maintenance or decoy).
That looks like at least twice the number of ready launchers compared to the USN.
Not sure the USAF is quite as hard-assed about the keys now. But the are making somewhat of a comeback from the days after SAC was...sacked. They certainly don't screw around with route security.
Frankly it's a little concerning to see your observations on the current state of US nuclear tactical employment. Over the past few days, the non-MSM has been alight with commentary on the topic from the likes of David Haiphong, Alstair Crooke, John Merscheimer and the various colonels MacGregor, Davis and Wilkerson. When there is that much 'tut tutting" going on, a prudent person may presume that something is percolating hard in the background to create the chatter. I'm very hopeful that this is another in a long series of false alarms. The consequences otherwise are unacceptable.
Your list consists of incompetents and liars. All have demonstrated that assertion on many occasions. People like MacGregor, Ritter, Mearsheimer and "the various Colonels" are simply a waste of time. They want to considered authorities, but all they have accomplished is the status of talking heads the MSM tends to love.
Yep - I agree that they are certainly not the mainstream narrative shapers. They are definitely in the fringe. That's why when I see a bunch of "off brand" bloggers expressing similar concerns about what the primary sources are also alluding to I become interested in the back story. Why is everyone talking about tactical nuke doctrine at the same time?
Understand the names I dropped aren't popular here. But if you want to avoid only seeing the same opinions recycled you need to look outside occasionally. In addition to reading US military commentators, I also follows a few insightful analysts from Austria, India, Serbia and the Philippines who have interesting track records. There is a lot of info out there if you are willing to sort the wheat from the chaff. YMMV.
The problem is MacGregor, Ritter, and the others have been caught in both gross inaccuracies and lies. McGregor and Ritter are the most egregious. Both are anti-American, adn both have been dogged supporters of Putin.
Then you have idiots like Theodore Beale, AKA Vox Day, who doesn't even understand the terms air supremacy or Air Superiority. He claims Russia has Air Supremacy when they don't even have air superiority. I don't think Beale is a liar, he's grossly ignorant and does not have the required background to realize the people he takes info from all trace back to Putin, and other anti-American sources.
It is not a matter unpopularity. It is a matter of truthfulness and accuracy. Yes the mileage varies, and it varies in a way that is not favorable to the people on your list.
The unacceptable is what our USG officials have made for their and our breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And snacks as well. We're all learning now to get along as one of the many rather than the boss of all. Plenty of crow pie to go around for all of us Americans. Washington, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts . . . somethings in that mix are our pot of gold.
to be fair, Roosevelt2 took our pot of gold, made it illegal, gave us paper, and then immediately doubled (approximately) the value of the gold (or halved the value of the paper)
Great article. We all "live in the past" because that's what humans do. The days of "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)" as an anchor which kept the world safely moored and away from the rocks of, well, annihilation, are in the past. Nuclear proliferation has certainly breached containment publicly (India, Pakistan, N Korea) and semi-publicly (Isreal, S. Africa then "rescinded). Which means the risk of use either thru accident, miscalculation, or deliberate desire to end the world (see Iran, 12 Imam) is greater. Treaties and agreements are only as good as their enforcement mechanism. A good start, but regarding effectiveness, the "Devil is in the details". But if you don't take the first step and examine the consequences of inaction, someone might get the idea that we can "win a nuclear exchange". Please note, one of our options in a "great Pacific war" of the future is something along those lines. Have to note, it is depressing to watch the UK and France, both nuclear powers, trend towards government via religious theocracy. IMO, YMMV.
Ranking the stability of a government itself, or the stability of its thinking processes is always difficult. At the risk of earning the ire of the Always-anti-MAGA (tm) crowd, I will state that I do not believe POTUS would be irrationally goaded into a nuclear exchange, so let's get that bit of left-wing mirror gazing our of the way. Looking at the nations that did not sign this joint statement - In order of likelihood of launching on an impulse, my bet would be on N. Korea (the family genes having been going downhill ever since grandpa died), followed by Pakistan or India, then Israel (surrounded by existential threats, and they're *never* going to go quietly), Russia, PRC, and S. Africa.
Fair argument, and pretty much argee. Regarding NKorea, he knows if he launches, or has one of his warheads get used against "the west", NKorea will be nuclear glass fifteen minutes later. So, if he does "break the seal", it will likely be a last great act of defiance. IIRC, we actually helped Pakistan develop a system of nuclear weapons surety because of a "lack of confidence in their governmental stability" and "who has the codes". Not 100% sure about that. Always interesting to reflect on the "near misses" the world has had that made it into the public domain. And wonder how many "near misses" are still not public.
Seriously, what do you have against North Korea? Under Kim the 3rd they basically stopped espionage operations, greatly reduced numbers of border clashes, instead shifting to nuclear and missile testing. They even stopped to declare South Korea as "part of our land", instead threatening it just like some unfriendly neighbor that they didn't want to talk with. And you are still viewing them as some kind of nefarious schemers, while they very clearly stated that all they want is to be left alone.
Missing sarcasm tag? Or did you not read the "last great act of defiance" part of the post? His goal is always personal and regime survival. The two are separate but closely related.
Regarding near misses, the one that sticks in my mind is when a Soviet general in Cuba decided to launch. The fact that they had two electrical/mechanical failures before Moscow could put a halt to it is the only reason that one didn’t happen.
That's a myth. General Issa Pliev, who commanded Soviet troops on Cuba, did not have authority to use strategic nuclear weapons. He was authorized to use TACTICAL nuclear weapon, if Soviet positions on Cuba would be directly attacked. He never attempted to use any kind of nuclear weapons during crisis - which is obvious, considering that his career did not suffer any consequences, and he was even considered as candidate for Party Central Committe in late 1960s (quite obviously, general with such a glaring black spot as "attempted an unauthorized nuclear launch" would never ever be considered for such posirtion)
Please tell me, and the rest of us, what you think the result of a Soviet tactical nuclear hit on Miami might result in? Surely you don’t think the U.S. would have sat there quietly. JFK had already made up his mind that any strike from Cuban soil would result in an all out attack on the USSR. Regardless of the general’s official “authorization”.
The tactical nuclear strikes were supposed to be launched against invasion forces, not American territory. None of tactical missiles deployed on Cuba - Luna-M tactical ballistics, FRK cruise missiles - have range to hit Miami or anything on American soil. It's theoretically possible that Il-28 with tactical nuke could be launched to hit Miami, but general Pliev have no authorization to attack American territory. He could employ his tactical nukes only again US invasion forces/invasion fleet, and ONLY if Soviet forces were directly attacked.
North Korea have likely the most ruthlessly pragmatic and rational leader now than ever before. They aren't doing anything on impulse; all their "spontaneous outbursts" are always carefully pre-calculated.
To maintain the carefully constructed image of determined nation, which would not heistate to use everything they have against the enemy. North Korean nuclear capabilities are limited. Their main trump card is that nobody questioned their determination to use them, if North Korea got attacked. USA leadership might talk itself into delusion of "Iranian regime would not dare to retaliate", but they clearly did not think the same about North Korea.
The "failed" country that literally have the better ICBM's than USA - despite having only a tiny fraction of American resources - clearly isn't very "failed". They have their troubled times; who didn't? By now, they managed to recover and improve quite significantly (notice that Kim's speeches are now captured on smartphones by NK public?)
Clearly, you do not pay attention. I watched him on "The Apprentice," pre senility. This man can't stay awake, he's a senile sleepy Joe. Ronald Reagan was an entertainer, like Trump, but, he actually ran a state, and surrounded himself with competent aides and administers, not Saturday cable TV stars.
Trump's war is a disaster, we are getting our butts kicked by barely-educated religious snake-handlers while The Donald cowers in a catering truck. Freedom of the Seas, an American value we have fought for since 1801, has been lost. The Attorney General of the United States is a pedophile protector. SecDef is an empty suit with no plan for victory in a war only a moron would start. Sad.
Reread what I said. It still applies. You're simply spewing leftist talking points. I don't care for Trump, but I'm not going to lie about the man as you have.
If you live in the universe of objective fact, the world is considerably worse off after Trump's ill-considered war. Explain why a waterway which was once open to all is better off with fees for passage?
By the time I was 6, I knew I was living in the shadow of nuclear annihilation. Bert the turtle taught us the duck & cover drill. I lived it the entirety of the Cold War until the shadow faded in 1991. But it's back now. It actually never left. There's always that 0.001% with an itchy trigger finger.
I'm a bit younger, but it's not a top 10 concern for me. Sure I think it could happen, but it's not a visceral concern like attempted Socialist/Communist civil war is. Or some cyclical natural event (disaster). Now I think a true nuclear "all everybody's got" exchange would be a slight bit less of a reset than some of the possible cyclical events.
We've been "us" for almost 300,000 years and the date keeps moving back, but our history starts around 6000 years ago, maybe 12000 if we give credence to Plato and Solon and some of the Sanskrit.
Whether it's us, the sun, the core, or whatever, I do have optimism that this time around we may have an outputs or two on the moon and Mars that can preserve the scientific and engineering progress we've made, and the principles upon which our Republic was founded as well.
Unless I missed one, it looks like the list is mostly NATO and ANZUS, plus a couple of countries from our emergent attempt to create a NATO-like security structure for the Pacific region (PTO?). The only countries that don't fit into one or more of the above seem to be Moldova and Ukraine--both of which are NATO wannabes.
I'm guessing Israel isn't on the list because it would complicate any efforts to coax any other Middle Eastern or perhaps Islamic states as co-signatories. Or maybe Turkey vetoed their participation and we rolled on that.
Yup. And meanwhile Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia sign a long-underway Islamic NATO / ME NATO -- clearly aimed at Israel; former Ukraine goes under Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania; Iran stands down The USG; Franco-British-German societies and economies go full pervert; and BRICS moves forward on trade settlements in domestic currencies (i.e., outside the USD and SWIFT). Yeah, NATO and ANZUS have what to work with ? They can still shake air.
Hey man, I'm willing to hear why you think it's a viable indicator.
Here's why I think it's not:
Doomsday Clock which has been around longer than I've been alive, nearly 80 years now. It's almost always been "a few minutes to midnight" implying that nuclear annihilation of the worlds was nigh upon us.
Through most of the 50's it was 2 minutes till midnight. I can see that.
During the Cuban Missile Crises it stayed steady as it had been from 1960 at 7 minutes till midnight.
It backed off to 12 minutes in 1963 after the crises was over.
But started to fall thereafter with some ups and downs, hitting its nadir in the Reagan years at 3 minutes.
It rose after Reagan hitting its zenith in 1991 at 17 minutes.
From there it was almost completely going down until this very day where it sits between 1 minute 25 seconds till midnight having dropped a few seconds in the last couple years.
So, we are to believe that the world is closer to extinction now than it was in the 1950s? The Cuban Missile Crisis? I can't buy that. Even the Cold War post Missile Crisis seems more dangerous than now. But back in the early Cold War I think the possibility of a nuclear exchange was much greater than it is now. And everything I hear about the Missile Crisis tells me it was damn close.
Now, might a crazy somewhere toss a nuke or two (plus a few in retaliation)? Yes, and the probability of that is certainly infinitely more than it was in the 50s and 60s. But the chance of a general exchange involving hundreds of warheads seems pretty small to me.
Thanks for laying this out so clearly. I appreciate it.
I will study, cogitate and respond accordingly.
(I am currently re-enjoying Patrick O’Brian’s sea-faring audiobook series (with Captain Jack Aubrey and Dr. Stephen Maturin), and am out on their latest adventure in the Indian Ocean - “The Mauritius Command”;-)
Just absorbed your articulate and historical context, which is greatly appreciated.
I agree with your position re the lower likelihood of full-on, strategic nuclear exchange, ala MAD. I don't think leadership authority in any superpower wants that consciously, and has gamed it out extensively with results that affirm this, and the C&C is well-hardened in this respect.
As you point out, the systems' chaos comes from tactical nukes by lower-tier and non-state actors, combined with plausible scenarios involving adjacent technology (dirty bombs, EMP-types, bio and chemical warfare munitions, malware and errant AI, etc), and the rise of 'mind warfare' (cognitive overload), kamikazi/martyrdom culture, nihilism, etc.
A dangerous brew, to put it mildly.
So, while the "doomsday clock" is not a scientific indicator (as the public information about it lays out), it is a form of a barometer on social sentiment and stress.
So, IMHO, technical discussion of the means, policies and processes of strategic weapons benefits from a periodic, broader context.
"War is the continuation of politics by other means" (Clausewitz) coupled with "Culture is upstream from politics" (~Breitbart).
"We should not forfeit our humanity in the pursuit of our security" (Me). That is what the Chekists and its successors started and sustained in Russia over the past 100 years...
I don't see any chance of a treaty in today's diplomatic environment. Maybe if things cooled off significantly first, but there's no indication that will happen.
And Nazi used gas in Kerch catacombs to kill guerillas operating from there. Nazi, of course, claimed that the gas was merely irritant and non-lethal... but pumping even formally non-lethal gas into underground tunnels have obvious results (post-war Germans claimed that gas attack did not took place, since there were no official resolution, but all surviving Kerch defenders clearly states that use of gas - supposedly chlorine - took place).
There were incidents of gas usage on the East Front. They were investigated by the Gestapo and NKVD. All cases were closed with findings of misreporting of irritation gas or smoke or error under stress.
The Philippine Republic (official title) is getting short shrift here. Republic of the Marshall Islands and Republic of Moldova got better treatment. Using the term "the Philippines" just feels like a dismissive thought rather than a recognition of a sovereign nation. Although I haven't lived there (liberty in the 1970's only), and have no Filipino friends or relatives, I have great respect for that nation. The State Department Deputy Assistant Sub-Undersecretary for Proofreading needs a strong talking-to...or maybe a new posting to Johnston Atoll. I understand it's lovely there this time of year.
From what a friend of mine who considered applying for a job posting there, it's lovely pretty much every time of year.
Though I'm not sure we still have a permanent installation there ever since we used it as the venue for burning up our unitary chemical weapons back in the 1990s.
Insofar as I am aware, there *is* no more VX since every last drop of our unitary chemical weapons was burned in the Johnston Atoll furnace complex.
There were five high-temp furnaces and every weapon we owned was burned in each of them successively. When we were done with that, each furnace was then burned in the next one. I'm not sure what they did with the last one--perhaps that's what you're referring to.
Unless we cheated massively in the 1990s after the CWC went into effect, the only chemical weapons we still have are binary weapons, which--while some of their precursor components *are* toxic--are not "chemical weapons" until they're mixed during the trajectory to the target.
Let me say this one more time—there are no unitary chemical weapons or chemical-weapon payloads on Johnston Atoll or anywhere else in the US or its territories, and have not been since we finished destroying them thirty years ago.
As for the binary weapons, the precursor components are kept carefully separated and stored to make it pretty much impossible for them to mix unless someone is really committed to making it happen.
The old deal was that the US had a near monopoly on nukes in the West and everyone else lived under that umbrella. That umbrella has now blown away. Russia and China have both threatened to use nukes if they don't get their way. The Chicoms are particularly nasty about it. They are also on a path to more than 1,500 warheads with two new reactors on the Fujian coast to make weapons grade plutonium. They are adopting a nuclear war fighting stance. Another problem is Elbridge Colby, the US Undersecretary for War. He wants to sell out Taiwan and Japan so he can go down in history as a Nixon-like realist. That is why the word Tawain did not appear in the last US national strategy document. Colby is currently trying to get invited to visit China so he can impress them with how much a realist he is. There is anecdotal evidence that Japan is building molten salt reactors to make weapons grade plutonium. This should be high grade stuff with very low Pu240.
The command structure and individuals in the Russian chain of command today are NOTHING like those we dealt with back in the Cold War days. The current war in Ukraine demonstrate. Our forces have forgotten what used to be appreciated all the way down to the JO level. We had nuclear depth bombs and kilo-ton quality Standard Missiles too (both cruisers with Belknap having both). Today ? . . I do not think we have a single Surface Warfare Officer who appreciates this reality. You make good points in this piece.
You could probably get North Korea into the talks pretty easily - if you just stop insisting on their "denuclearization" and instead started to insist on nuclear limitations, transparence, ect. They would likely eagerly agree to limit the number of their warhead to minimal sustainable deterrence, as long as you agree that they are nuclear state & could have the bomb, just not too many.
Right direction. Talks follow attitudes. The attitude must be mutual benefit. Then talks are a natural for everyone. Who doesn't want benefit ? Only the pigheaded would not want mutual benefit. The desire to pre-control outcomes afflicts the fearful, not the self-confident.
Current diplomatic locutions have that as "mutual benefit" and "indivisible security." The second means, no two align to attack third. The practicality of the old original Non-Aligned Movement principles, strangely enough, has come into view by many peoples and nations. Mutually Assured Survival is the gist of their awareness. It arrives not out of fear but from strength, to include strength of intellect to see that wanting to be the big shot is absolutely self-contracting and therefore stupid.
"The goal is to get everyone to the table . . . ."
Everyone except BRICS ? Everyone except the world's largest industrial power, its most accomplished and successful military organization, its least debt-ridden, its best engineering talent, its most enthusiastic to be self-able, and its majority of land mass and physical population ?
Everyone except those guys is everyone ?
My read of State's letter is that they are feeling weak and afraid of being left out of developments -- they already are -- and no longer The Big Kahuna of international affairs.
Sadly, I think that train has left the station. The structures that assured that we wouldn't make a mistake no longer exist, and those who stand on the opposite side have little interest in creating similar structures.
What am I saying? Basically, to the Chinese, the very fear and ambiguity that Salamander is talking about are features, not bugs to be fixed. If we are afraid that something nuclear this way comes, then we won't involve ourselves with that little island off their coast.
I assume you are referring to Exercise Able Archer. A NATO war exercise held in 1983/1984. Mostly involving conventional forces, but with a small embedded nuclear war scenario. The conventional war portion was executed without any controversy. The nuclear portion however was somewhat botched up. Mistake number one - no notification to the Soviet Union. So, when the classified scenario unfolded some of the communications was detected by Soviet intelligence and reported up the chain (contrary to your sidebar article, that Soviet Lt Col was not the only one tracking the unreported exercise scenario actions). Mistake number two, some of the standard "this is a drill, this is a drill" verbiage had not been added to the communications (maybe there was classified coding that referred to the drill nature but again it was not obvious to the uninitiated), making them look even more realistic to the uninformed. A Soviet General made the actual decision to not launch a retaliatory strike. Because this was a highly classified portion of a generally US/NATO classified exercise none of this was declassified for decades. The public generally believes that the "Cuban missile crisis" was the closest the US and Soviet Union ever got to actual nuclear war. But this exercise tops that by a long shot. r/karl
There are plenty of military officers who never stopped training for nuclear war at any moment.
No Surface Warfare Officers, though. Nuclear capable systems became the sole province of Submariners, and they do not hesitate to take the keys from boats and the SWFs for failing nuclear inspections.
Submariners in the USN.
USAF still has 3 missile (i.e. ICBM) wings with a combined 420 missile silos and apparently an authorized launch vehicle count of 400 (leaving 5% float for maintenance or decoy).
That looks like at least twice the number of ready launchers compared to the USN.
Not sure the USAF is quite as hard-assed about the keys now. But the are making somewhat of a comeback from the days after SAC was...sacked. They certainly don't screw around with route security.
Yeah, there was an incident 2007 that caused the Air Force to make nuclear surety a focus again. Hence why Global Strike Command was set up.
Incident is putting it somewhat mildly.
People did lose their jobs over it, and fairly high ranking people at that. But it was probably still not as draconian as it should have been.
Can't imagine what the weapons troops at Barksdale must have thought when that plane taxied into the download area.
was that after ADM Ellis at STRATCOM?
Frankly it's a little concerning to see your observations on the current state of US nuclear tactical employment. Over the past few days, the non-MSM has been alight with commentary on the topic from the likes of David Haiphong, Alstair Crooke, John Merscheimer and the various colonels MacGregor, Davis and Wilkerson. When there is that much 'tut tutting" going on, a prudent person may presume that something is percolating hard in the background to create the chatter. I'm very hopeful that this is another in a long series of false alarms. The consequences otherwise are unacceptable.
I would recommend to you that you may want to adopt some additional information sources.
Those were the non-MSM ones that I was referencing. Figured we are all familiar with the primary narrative sources
Then there is Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. We are all familiar with the primary narrative sources.
Your list consists of incompetents and liars. All have demonstrated that assertion on many occasions. People like MacGregor, Ritter, Mearsheimer and "the various Colonels" are simply a waste of time. They want to considered authorities, but all they have accomplished is the status of talking heads the MSM tends to love.
Yep - I agree that they are certainly not the mainstream narrative shapers. They are definitely in the fringe. That's why when I see a bunch of "off brand" bloggers expressing similar concerns about what the primary sources are also alluding to I become interested in the back story. Why is everyone talking about tactical nuke doctrine at the same time?
Understand the names I dropped aren't popular here. But if you want to avoid only seeing the same opinions recycled you need to look outside occasionally. In addition to reading US military commentators, I also follows a few insightful analysts from Austria, India, Serbia and the Philippines who have interesting track records. There is a lot of info out there if you are willing to sort the wheat from the chaff. YMMV.
They could well have been talking to each other. Isolation on the fringe will lead to that
The problem is MacGregor, Ritter, and the others have been caught in both gross inaccuracies and lies. McGregor and Ritter are the most egregious. Both are anti-American, adn both have been dogged supporters of Putin.
Then you have idiots like Theodore Beale, AKA Vox Day, who doesn't even understand the terms air supremacy or Air Superiority. He claims Russia has Air Supremacy when they don't even have air superiority. I don't think Beale is a liar, he's grossly ignorant and does not have the required background to realize the people he takes info from all trace back to Putin, and other anti-American sources.
It is not a matter unpopularity. It is a matter of truthfulness and accuracy. Yes the mileage varies, and it varies in a way that is not favorable to the people on your list.
Where’s the likex100 button?
Or a "Terradittoes" button.
The unacceptable is what our USG officials have made for their and our breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And snacks as well. We're all learning now to get along as one of the many rather than the boss of all. Plenty of crow pie to go around for all of us Americans. Washington, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts . . . somethings in that mix are our pot of gold.
to be fair, Roosevelt2 took our pot of gold, made it illegal, gave us paper, and then immediately doubled (approximately) the value of the gold (or halved the value of the paper)
Great article. We all "live in the past" because that's what humans do. The days of "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)" as an anchor which kept the world safely moored and away from the rocks of, well, annihilation, are in the past. Nuclear proliferation has certainly breached containment publicly (India, Pakistan, N Korea) and semi-publicly (Isreal, S. Africa then "rescinded). Which means the risk of use either thru accident, miscalculation, or deliberate desire to end the world (see Iran, 12 Imam) is greater. Treaties and agreements are only as good as their enforcement mechanism. A good start, but regarding effectiveness, the "Devil is in the details". But if you don't take the first step and examine the consequences of inaction, someone might get the idea that we can "win a nuclear exchange". Please note, one of our options in a "great Pacific war" of the future is something along those lines. Have to note, it is depressing to watch the UK and France, both nuclear powers, trend towards government via religious theocracy. IMO, YMMV.
Ranking the stability of a government itself, or the stability of its thinking processes is always difficult. At the risk of earning the ire of the Always-anti-MAGA (tm) crowd, I will state that I do not believe POTUS would be irrationally goaded into a nuclear exchange, so let's get that bit of left-wing mirror gazing our of the way. Looking at the nations that did not sign this joint statement - In order of likelihood of launching on an impulse, my bet would be on N. Korea (the family genes having been going downhill ever since grandpa died), followed by Pakistan or India, then Israel (surrounded by existential threats, and they're *never* going to go quietly), Russia, PRC, and S. Africa.
Fair argument, and pretty much argee. Regarding NKorea, he knows if he launches, or has one of his warheads get used against "the west", NKorea will be nuclear glass fifteen minutes later. So, if he does "break the seal", it will likely be a last great act of defiance. IIRC, we actually helped Pakistan develop a system of nuclear weapons surety because of a "lack of confidence in their governmental stability" and "who has the codes". Not 100% sure about that. Always interesting to reflect on the "near misses" the world has had that made it into the public domain. And wonder how many "near misses" are still not public.
Seriously, what do you have against North Korea? Under Kim the 3rd they basically stopped espionage operations, greatly reduced numbers of border clashes, instead shifting to nuclear and missile testing. They even stopped to declare South Korea as "part of our land", instead threatening it just like some unfriendly neighbor that they didn't want to talk with. And you are still viewing them as some kind of nefarious schemers, while they very clearly stated that all they want is to be left alone.
Missing sarcasm tag? Or did you not read the "last great act of defiance" part of the post? His goal is always personal and regime survival. The two are separate but closely related.
Regarding near misses, the one that sticks in my mind is when a Soviet general in Cuba decided to launch. The fact that they had two electrical/mechanical failures before Moscow could put a halt to it is the only reason that one didn’t happen.
That's a myth. General Issa Pliev, who commanded Soviet troops on Cuba, did not have authority to use strategic nuclear weapons. He was authorized to use TACTICAL nuclear weapon, if Soviet positions on Cuba would be directly attacked. He never attempted to use any kind of nuclear weapons during crisis - which is obvious, considering that his career did not suffer any consequences, and he was even considered as candidate for Party Central Committe in late 1960s (quite obviously, general with such a glaring black spot as "attempted an unauthorized nuclear launch" would never ever be considered for such posirtion)
Please tell me, and the rest of us, what you think the result of a Soviet tactical nuclear hit on Miami might result in? Surely you don’t think the U.S. would have sat there quietly. JFK had already made up his mind that any strike from Cuban soil would result in an all out attack on the USSR. Regardless of the general’s official “authorization”.
The tactical nuclear strikes were supposed to be launched against invasion forces, not American territory. None of tactical missiles deployed on Cuba - Luna-M tactical ballistics, FRK cruise missiles - have range to hit Miami or anything on American soil. It's theoretically possible that Il-28 with tactical nuke could be launched to hit Miami, but general Pliev have no authorization to attack American territory. He could employ his tactical nukes only again US invasion forces/invasion fleet, and ONLY if Soviet forces were directly attacked.
North Korea have likely the most ruthlessly pragmatic and rational leader now than ever before. They aren't doing anything on impulse; all their "spontaneous outbursts" are always carefully pre-calculated.
Agree with all of the above.
Pre-calculated to what end?
Self preservation. You think they don't deserve that ? If so, who are you to believe they are not ?
To maintain the carefully constructed image of determined nation, which would not heistate to use everything they have against the enemy. North Korean nuclear capabilities are limited. Their main trump card is that nobody questioned their determination to use them, if North Korea got attacked. USA leadership might talk itself into delusion of "Iranian regime would not dare to retaliate", but they clearly did not think the same about North Korea.
The U.S. has never had a need to invade a country as failed and paranoid as NK, whose levels of both exceed everyone else.
The "failed" country that literally have the better ICBM's than USA - despite having only a tiny fraction of American resources - clearly isn't very "failed". They have their troubled times; who didn't? By now, they managed to recover and improve quite significantly (notice that Kim's speeches are now captured on smartphones by NK public?)
Didn't need to invade Iraq either, but here we are...
The only country in W's "Axis of Evil" not to get bombed.
Any argument which presumes the stability and competence of Donald J. Trump is clearly worthless. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Your statement is consistent with your malignant TDS.
Clearly, you do not pay attention. I watched him on "The Apprentice," pre senility. This man can't stay awake, he's a senile sleepy Joe. Ronald Reagan was an entertainer, like Trump, but, he actually ran a state, and surrounded himself with competent aides and administers, not Saturday cable TV stars.
Trump's war is a disaster, we are getting our butts kicked by barely-educated religious snake-handlers while The Donald cowers in a catering truck. Freedom of the Seas, an American value we have fought for since 1801, has been lost. The Attorney General of the United States is a pedophile protector. SecDef is an empty suit with no plan for victory in a war only a moron would start. Sad.
Reread what I said. It still applies. You're simply spewing leftist talking points. I don't care for Trump, but I'm not going to lie about the man as you have.
If you live in the universe of objective fact, the world is considerably worse off after Trump's ill-considered war. Explain why a waterway which was once open to all is better off with fees for passage?
He's bungled Covid-19, now he's losing the war.
By the time I was 6, I knew I was living in the shadow of nuclear annihilation. Bert the turtle taught us the duck & cover drill. I lived it the entirety of the Cold War until the shadow faded in 1991. But it's back now. It actually never left. There's always that 0.001% with an itchy trigger finger.
I'm a bit younger, but it's not a top 10 concern for me. Sure I think it could happen, but it's not a visceral concern like attempted Socialist/Communist civil war is. Or some cyclical natural event (disaster). Now I think a true nuclear "all everybody's got" exchange would be a slight bit less of a reset than some of the possible cyclical events.
We've been "us" for almost 300,000 years and the date keeps moving back, but our history starts around 6000 years ago, maybe 12000 if we give credence to Plato and Solon and some of the Sanskrit.
Whether it's us, the sun, the core, or whatever, I do have optimism that this time around we may have an outputs or two on the moon and Mars that can preserve the scientific and engineering progress we've made, and the principles upon which our Republic was founded as well.
Unless I missed one, it looks like the list is mostly NATO and ANZUS, plus a couple of countries from our emergent attempt to create a NATO-like security structure for the Pacific region (PTO?). The only countries that don't fit into one or more of the above seem to be Moldova and Ukraine--both of which are NATO wannabes.
I'm guessing Israel isn't on the list because it would complicate any efforts to coax any other Middle Eastern or perhaps Islamic states as co-signatories. Or maybe Turkey vetoed their participation and we rolled on that.
The P.I. thing is awkward, no doubt about it.
Yup. And meanwhile Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia sign a long-underway Islamic NATO / ME NATO -- clearly aimed at Israel; former Ukraine goes under Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania; Iran stands down The USG; Franco-British-German societies and economies go full pervert; and BRICS moves forward on trade settlements in domestic currencies (i.e., outside the USD and SWIFT). Yeah, NATO and ANZUS have what to work with ? They can still shake air.
For additional public policy context:
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/
I hope that was intended as sarcasm. (If I missed it, my apologies.)
The Doomsday Clock has always been a crock of steaming propaganda by useful idiots.
👎
Apparently I read it correctly.
And apparently I read your attitude correctly.
Hey man, I'm willing to hear why you think it's a viable indicator.
Here's why I think it's not:
Doomsday Clock which has been around longer than I've been alive, nearly 80 years now. It's almost always been "a few minutes to midnight" implying that nuclear annihilation of the worlds was nigh upon us.
Through most of the 50's it was 2 minutes till midnight. I can see that.
During the Cuban Missile Crises it stayed steady as it had been from 1960 at 7 minutes till midnight.
It backed off to 12 minutes in 1963 after the crises was over.
But started to fall thereafter with some ups and downs, hitting its nadir in the Reagan years at 3 minutes.
It rose after Reagan hitting its zenith in 1991 at 17 minutes.
From there it was almost completely going down until this very day where it sits between 1 minute 25 seconds till midnight having dropped a few seconds in the last couple years.
So, we are to believe that the world is closer to extinction now than it was in the 1950s? The Cuban Missile Crisis? I can't buy that. Even the Cold War post Missile Crisis seems more dangerous than now. But back in the early Cold War I think the possibility of a nuclear exchange was much greater than it is now. And everything I hear about the Missile Crisis tells me it was damn close.
Now, might a crazy somewhere toss a nuke or two (plus a few in retaliation)? Yes, and the probability of that is certainly infinitely more than it was in the 50s and 60s. But the chance of a general exchange involving hundreds of warheads seems pretty small to me.
Like I said, I'm willing to hear why I'm wrong.
Thanks for laying this out so clearly. I appreciate it.
I will study, cogitate and respond accordingly.
(I am currently re-enjoying Patrick O’Brian’s sea-faring audiobook series (with Captain Jack Aubrey and Dr. Stephen Maturin), and am out on their latest adventure in the Indian Ocean - “The Mauritius Command”;-)
Cheers,
--David
Hi LT,
Just absorbed your articulate and historical context, which is greatly appreciated.
I agree with your position re the lower likelihood of full-on, strategic nuclear exchange, ala MAD. I don't think leadership authority in any superpower wants that consciously, and has gamed it out extensively with results that affirm this, and the C&C is well-hardened in this respect.
As you point out, the systems' chaos comes from tactical nukes by lower-tier and non-state actors, combined with plausible scenarios involving adjacent technology (dirty bombs, EMP-types, bio and chemical warfare munitions, malware and errant AI, etc), and the rise of 'mind warfare' (cognitive overload), kamikazi/martyrdom culture, nihilism, etc.
A dangerous brew, to put it mildly.
So, while the "doomsday clock" is not a scientific indicator (as the public information about it lays out), it is a form of a barometer on social sentiment and stress.
So, IMHO, technical discussion of the means, policies and processes of strategic weapons benefits from a periodic, broader context.
"War is the continuation of politics by other means" (Clausewitz) coupled with "Culture is upstream from politics" (~Breitbart).
"We should not forfeit our humanity in the pursuit of our security" (Me). That is what the Chekists and its successors started and sustained in Russia over the past 100 years...
So then, Good Morning!🇺🇸👊☮️
I don't see any chance of a treaty in today's diplomatic environment. Maybe if things cooled off significantly first, but there's no indication that will happen.
"In WWII, all sides were equipped with chemical weapons to the gills, but no one used them…though some lobbied for their use."
Japan used poison gas in China. Germs too.
And Nazi used gas in Kerch catacombs to kill guerillas operating from there. Nazi, of course, claimed that the gas was merely irritant and non-lethal... but pumping even formally non-lethal gas into underground tunnels have obvious results (post-war Germans claimed that gas attack did not took place, since there were no official resolution, but all surviving Kerch defenders clearly states that use of gas - supposedly chlorine - took place).
There were incidents of gas usage on the East Front. They were investigated by the Gestapo and NKVD. All cases were closed with findings of misreporting of irritation gas or smoke or error under stress.
thank you; was going to mention it. Also, were the attempted balloon attacks on the pacific northwest chemical or biological? I can't recall.
They were incendiary.
Thanks. I thought there was something more but wouldn't swear to it
Good Idea but some nations don't need nuclear weapons want to acquire them and will use them.
No treaty is good with those nations.
Taqiyya, and fanatical governments for their God or their Agenda to rule the world be it radioactive and ashes.
The Philippine Republic (official title) is getting short shrift here. Republic of the Marshall Islands and Republic of Moldova got better treatment. Using the term "the Philippines" just feels like a dismissive thought rather than a recognition of a sovereign nation. Although I haven't lived there (liberty in the 1970's only), and have no Filipino friends or relatives, I have great respect for that nation. The State Department Deputy Assistant Sub-Undersecretary for Proofreading needs a strong talking-to...or maybe a new posting to Johnston Atoll. I understand it's lovely there this time of year.
From what a friend of mine who considered applying for a job posting there, it's lovely pretty much every time of year.
Though I'm not sure we still have a permanent installation there ever since we used it as the venue for burning up our unitary chemical weapons back in the 1990s.
The problem now is that the concrete cap over the weapons dump is cracking. I’m not a big fan of scrambled eggs with a side order of VX for breakfast.
Insofar as I am aware, there *is* no more VX since every last drop of our unitary chemical weapons was burned in the Johnston Atoll furnace complex.
There were five high-temp furnaces and every weapon we owned was burned in each of them successively. When we were done with that, each furnace was then burned in the next one. I'm not sure what they did with the last one--perhaps that's what you're referring to.
Unless we cheated massively in the 1990s after the CWC went into effect, the only chemical weapons we still have are binary weapons, which--while some of their precursor components *are* toxic--are not "chemical weapons" until they're mixed during the trajectory to the target.
Or…since both are present in the cache, they might mix without permission. Let’s just say, I won’t be taking out a long term lease there. YMMV.
Let me say this one more time—there are no unitary chemical weapons or chemical-weapon payloads on Johnston Atoll or anywhere else in the US or its territories, and have not been since we finished destroying them thirty years ago.
As for the binary weapons, the precursor components are kept carefully separated and stored to make it pretty much impossible for them to mix unless someone is really committed to making it happen.
Which is kinda the point.
Thank you for the information. So, was I wrong about Johnston Island having the cap? Is that a different island? If Johnston, why the cap?
except for Pinatubo season
Some leftist dolt is probably screaming "cOlOnIaLiSm".
Still, very poor staff work.
The old deal was that the US had a near monopoly on nukes in the West and everyone else lived under that umbrella. That umbrella has now blown away. Russia and China have both threatened to use nukes if they don't get their way. The Chicoms are particularly nasty about it. They are also on a path to more than 1,500 warheads with two new reactors on the Fujian coast to make weapons grade plutonium. They are adopting a nuclear war fighting stance. Another problem is Elbridge Colby, the US Undersecretary for War. He wants to sell out Taiwan and Japan so he can go down in history as a Nixon-like realist. That is why the word Tawain did not appear in the last US national strategy document. Colby is currently trying to get invited to visit China so he can impress them with how much a realist he is. There is anecdotal evidence that Japan is building molten salt reactors to make weapons grade plutonium. This should be high grade stuff with very low Pu240.
And also a Jones Act hater.
The command structure and individuals in the Russian chain of command today are NOTHING like those we dealt with back in the Cold War days. The current war in Ukraine demonstrate. Our forces have forgotten what used to be appreciated all the way down to the JO level. We had nuclear depth bombs and kilo-ton quality Standard Missiles too (both cruisers with Belknap having both). Today ? . . I do not think we have a single Surface Warfare Officer who appreciates this reality. You make good points in this piece.
You could probably get North Korea into the talks pretty easily - if you just stop insisting on their "denuclearization" and instead started to insist on nuclear limitations, transparence, ect. They would likely eagerly agree to limit the number of their warhead to minimal sustainable deterrence, as long as you agree that they are nuclear state & could have the bomb, just not too many.
Right direction. Talks follow attitudes. The attitude must be mutual benefit. Then talks are a natural for everyone. Who doesn't want benefit ? Only the pigheaded would not want mutual benefit. The desire to pre-control outcomes afflicts the fearful, not the self-confident.
Maybe we should switch to Mutually Assured Survival.
! ! !
Current diplomatic locutions have that as "mutual benefit" and "indivisible security." The second means, no two align to attack third. The practicality of the old original Non-Aligned Movement principles, strangely enough, has come into view by many peoples and nations. Mutually Assured Survival is the gist of their awareness. It arrives not out of fear but from strength, to include strength of intellect to see that wanting to be the big shot is absolutely self-contracting and therefore stupid.
"The goal is to get everyone to the table . . . ."
Everyone except BRICS ? Everyone except the world's largest industrial power, its most accomplished and successful military organization, its least debt-ridden, its best engineering talent, its most enthusiastic to be self-able, and its majority of land mass and physical population ?
Everyone except those guys is everyone ?
My read of State's letter is that they are feeling weak and afraid of being left out of developments -- they already are -- and no longer The Big Kahuna of international affairs.
Sadly, I think that train has left the station. The structures that assured that we wouldn't make a mistake no longer exist, and those who stand on the opposite side have little interest in creating similar structures.
What am I saying? Basically, to the Chinese, the very fear and ambiguity that Salamander is talking about are features, not bugs to be fixed. If we are afraid that something nuclear this way comes, then we won't involve ourselves with that little island off their coast.
I assume you are referring to Exercise Able Archer. A NATO war exercise held in 1983/1984. Mostly involving conventional forces, but with a small embedded nuclear war scenario. The conventional war portion was executed without any controversy. The nuclear portion however was somewhat botched up. Mistake number one - no notification to the Soviet Union. So, when the classified scenario unfolded some of the communications was detected by Soviet intelligence and reported up the chain (contrary to your sidebar article, that Soviet Lt Col was not the only one tracking the unreported exercise scenario actions). Mistake number two, some of the standard "this is a drill, this is a drill" verbiage had not been added to the communications (maybe there was classified coding that referred to the drill nature but again it was not obvious to the uninitiated), making them look even more realistic to the uninformed. A Soviet General made the actual decision to not launch a retaliatory strike. Because this was a highly classified portion of a generally US/NATO classified exercise none of this was declassified for decades. The public generally believes that the "Cuban missile crisis" was the closest the US and Soviet Union ever got to actual nuclear war. But this exercise tops that by a long shot. r/karl