I do not think that the Chinese are focused on an ability to destroy Moscow , but rather on Washington DC . The recent build up in their Nuclear capability is a response to the perceived threat from the USA . Moscow is an ally not a rival . There has been speculation that the rapid advances which China has made in Hypersonic Delivery Systems may be due to assistance from Russia .
There is another cultural meme which may have contributed to the fear of sudden nuclear annihilation: the mad leader whose actions cannot be explained rationally. Hitler is the main exponent. Putin is the new exponent of this idea.
In the efforts to keep the western population on side, which involve hiding the west’s share of responsibility from view, proper analysis of the various inter-national conflicts of interest is avoided. In this case, the only explanation for events the leaders have recourse to is the supposed rabid madness of the opponent. As a corollary, the population have no way of gauging how real and immediate the threat of the use of nuclear weapons really is and it is routinely overstated and overestimated.
Nuclear war is inevitable if, in each given year, there is a non-zero chance of nuclear weapons being fired by mistake. If the risk is 0.1%, then there is a roughly 50% chance of nuclear war breaking out within about 675 years; if the risk is 1%, then 50% probability is reached after about 70 years.
Disregarding that, the article rests on the double assumption that MAD exists and that it leads to rational calculations on the part of decision makers. Both of these assumptions can be questioned. The launch codes to the American nuclear arsenal are presently in the hands of a person who clearly suffices from bouts of intellectual impairment, given that they haven't been taken away from him. We are also witnessing the ongoing shelling of a nuclear power plant in the proxy war between NATO and Russia that's being fought in Ukraine. How can the assumption of rational decision making be upheld under such circumstances? As for MAD, the Russians are clearly worried that their nuclear arsenal might not survive a nuclear first strike, or not that it might not be survivable enough for the US not to believe that their anti-missile defenses would be able to cope with whatever the Russians might still be able to fire in retaliation. The US might even believe that a very small number of Russian warheads getting through would be both survivable and a worthwhile price to pay for what they could consider a winning outcome. It's not about real technical capability, it's about what each side believes - two different things. Believes are also shaped by ideologically grounded wishful thinking, and that is clearly something that is currently on a steep increase in the West in connection with the war in Ukraine.
Excellent essay. If there's a nuclear exchange, it will be between India and Pakistan or India and China, or a combination of the three. If any of the parties have the ground forces necessary, and do take their territorial claims to the limit, that's where it will start.
We haven't seen a world with nuclear weapons suffer destabilization of the scale that's on the horizon--something like the Great Depression, plus multiple pandemic diseases, plus gargantuan migration, plus famine, plus commodities shortages, plus an energy crisis.
Would your arguments pass muster in such a world? As the prosperity pie shrinks, I suspect there will be a lot of conflict and therefore more occasions where these weapons could conceivably be used, if only out of desperation or paranoia.
Well, this essay rests on the assumption that whoever is making decisions in the West is rational and connected to Reality. Or that there is even someone in charge. I am not so hopeful.
Thanks for the clarity. As in so many areas where military doctrine and politics overlap, there is a shocking lack of real understanding among commentators about the real purpose and motivation behind possession nuclear weapons. I think we are on our way to a world where a small nuclear deterrent will be the norm among most mid-sized powers (and may may simply use ambiguity over whether they possess them or not).
Of value to Americans now are Russian rocketry delivery systems, all sizes and kinds, not the explosives in them. US delivery systems are development decades behind Russian. That includes wunderwaffe HIMARS.
By Congressional and Executive fiat, US weapons development is to console manufacturers -- not only American ones -- whose maximum profit arrives from pushing out existing stuff rather than engineering new, not to guarantee US homeland defense or even success in possible foreign intrusions. There is no will for victory of US arms or preservation of US sovereignty in official Washington D.C. today, elected or appointed.
US surface fleet, for example, is an incompetent mess. Carriers are obsolete weapons systems presenting now as abattoirs for sailors and visuals for fan boys of military porn. Littoral ships are sent to junk just barely after joining the fleet. US main battle tanks are so laden now with bolt-ons that they cannot pass bridges in countries where they might be needed in use.
I cite these conditions to contest the assessment that people in D.C. are aware of the facts of nuclear conflict, facts accurately laid forth in this essay. USG, i.e. today, the IC, are hiring for pink plus hair, transgender cross-dressers, lesbian allies and partners, catamites, pederasts, and idiot savants. Female civilian think tank careerists of indeterminant gender, lacking military experience, run DOD. These are Hedley Lamarr employees. Individuals of these descriptions are unaware of the facts of nuclear conflict and will obdurately work from impulses not pacific even if they were aware of those facts. Their entire being shouts, "Ignore reality, implement ideology!"
My counsel: God only knows the enormity of what is afoot and what to do about it. Our duty at this time is to sketch out and test, by all means available, what is humanly and nationally beneficial on the other side, once its energy is spent, of this rolling disaster the same God, for reasons known only to Him, has seen fit to throw over us.
A really great article. Which I generally agree with. MAD -- assures us that nuclear war is exactly that "mad", "madness". Since the world dies. In the 20th Century there WERE a few near misses. In each case, which we know about -- since there may have been more unreported. https://www.sciencealert.com/near-misses-nuclear-war-history-cold-war-radar-missiles Since then, the technology has improved-- but so has targeting. The Russians can shoot down American missiles with S500 and S550 systems; but the Americans are vulnerable to Russian (and Chinese) hypersonic weapons. Miniaturization has led to smaller and smaller nuclear weapons for tactical use. But such use envisions a WWII type war in Europe. The use of those weapons would still produce a lot of radiation. That is, more small nukes = one biggy. IMO, nukes are just not practical. Even the American use of DU weapons done long-term enviironmental and genetic damage. You will notice that Chinese and Russian hypersonic weapons are dual -use. The CAN carry nuclear warheads but in practice they carry conventional weapons whose effectiveness is enhanced by kinetic energy. So, why are nuclear weapons such a big thing? When talking about war, the usual mistake-- one which the Americans make-- is to see everything framed by WWII. In terms of THAT war, the Americans say, "See what our little A bombs did to Japan-- we got bigger ones now". Fine, but would the Americans have used those bombs, if the Japanese had them too -- and delivery systems for them? Nuclear weapons are to US military types as dicks are to jocks -- something to flaunt, not to use. The WWII "frame" has other implications. For example, the US military spends trillions on carriers, which are the modern equivalent of Japanese battleships -- huge floating targets -- and good only against goat herders. The military is always talking about a Chinese D-Day type assault on Taiwan. Not going to happen. The Chinese could take Taiwan without such an assault, using the Russian strategy in Ukraine. Take out radars, suppress air defenses, destroy foritifications and fixed assets from the air. "Kettle" the island. If you look at my substack site (news forensics) you can see various articles on this. https://julianmacfarlane.substack.com/p/china-wins-the-us-loses
Thank you for your writings, particularly for this text. I feel a tad less concerned. ;) Still there are two points I find unsettling:
What about small, tactical nukes? When the Ukrain war began, this was my immediate worry: if the west would support Ukraine beyond whatever serious red lines Russia has, wouldnt they be tempted to use just one tactical nuke to give the west one last, big warning? Couldnt things really get out of hand then?
And: what about the quality, the competence of western politicians at this point? I think, you yourself, over at different blog, found some not so friendly words to describe the kind of people who are currently making careers in politics, specially in foreign politics. Rather ideologes than experts.
One quibble ,
I do not think that the Chinese are focused on an ability to destroy Moscow , but rather on Washington DC . The recent build up in their Nuclear capability is a response to the perceived threat from the USA . Moscow is an ally not a rival . There has been speculation that the rapid advances which China has made in Hypersonic Delivery Systems may be due to assistance from Russia .
There is another cultural meme which may have contributed to the fear of sudden nuclear annihilation: the mad leader whose actions cannot be explained rationally. Hitler is the main exponent. Putin is the new exponent of this idea.
In the efforts to keep the western population on side, which involve hiding the west’s share of responsibility from view, proper analysis of the various inter-national conflicts of interest is avoided. In this case, the only explanation for events the leaders have recourse to is the supposed rabid madness of the opponent. As a corollary, the population have no way of gauging how real and immediate the threat of the use of nuclear weapons really is and it is routinely overstated and overestimated.
Nuclear war is inevitable if, in each given year, there is a non-zero chance of nuclear weapons being fired by mistake. If the risk is 0.1%, then there is a roughly 50% chance of nuclear war breaking out within about 675 years; if the risk is 1%, then 50% probability is reached after about 70 years.
Disregarding that, the article rests on the double assumption that MAD exists and that it leads to rational calculations on the part of decision makers. Both of these assumptions can be questioned. The launch codes to the American nuclear arsenal are presently in the hands of a person who clearly suffices from bouts of intellectual impairment, given that they haven't been taken away from him. We are also witnessing the ongoing shelling of a nuclear power plant in the proxy war between NATO and Russia that's being fought in Ukraine. How can the assumption of rational decision making be upheld under such circumstances? As for MAD, the Russians are clearly worried that their nuclear arsenal might not survive a nuclear first strike, or not that it might not be survivable enough for the US not to believe that their anti-missile defenses would be able to cope with whatever the Russians might still be able to fire in retaliation. The US might even believe that a very small number of Russian warheads getting through would be both survivable and a worthwhile price to pay for what they could consider a winning outcome. It's not about real technical capability, it's about what each side believes - two different things. Believes are also shaped by ideologically grounded wishful thinking, and that is clearly something that is currently on a steep increase in the West in connection with the war in Ukraine.
Excellent essay. If there's a nuclear exchange, it will be between India and Pakistan or India and China, or a combination of the three. If any of the parties have the ground forces necessary, and do take their territorial claims to the limit, that's where it will start.
We haven't seen a world with nuclear weapons suffer destabilization of the scale that's on the horizon--something like the Great Depression, plus multiple pandemic diseases, plus gargantuan migration, plus famine, plus commodities shortages, plus an energy crisis.
Would your arguments pass muster in such a world? As the prosperity pie shrinks, I suspect there will be a lot of conflict and therefore more occasions where these weapons could conceivably be used, if only out of desperation or paranoia.
Well, this essay rests on the assumption that whoever is making decisions in the West is rational and connected to Reality. Or that there is even someone in charge. I am not so hopeful.
Irresponsible shelling of the Zaporozhie NPP, by UA, represents by far bigger nuclear disaster danger imo
Thanks for the clarity. As in so many areas where military doctrine and politics overlap, there is a shocking lack of real understanding among commentators about the real purpose and motivation behind possession nuclear weapons. I think we are on our way to a world where a small nuclear deterrent will be the norm among most mid-sized powers (and may may simply use ambiguity over whether they possess them or not).
Of value to Americans now are Russian rocketry delivery systems, all sizes and kinds, not the explosives in them. US delivery systems are development decades behind Russian. That includes wunderwaffe HIMARS.
By Congressional and Executive fiat, US weapons development is to console manufacturers -- not only American ones -- whose maximum profit arrives from pushing out existing stuff rather than engineering new, not to guarantee US homeland defense or even success in possible foreign intrusions. There is no will for victory of US arms or preservation of US sovereignty in official Washington D.C. today, elected or appointed.
US surface fleet, for example, is an incompetent mess. Carriers are obsolete weapons systems presenting now as abattoirs for sailors and visuals for fan boys of military porn. Littoral ships are sent to junk just barely after joining the fleet. US main battle tanks are so laden now with bolt-ons that they cannot pass bridges in countries where they might be needed in use.
I cite these conditions to contest the assessment that people in D.C. are aware of the facts of nuclear conflict, facts accurately laid forth in this essay. USG, i.e. today, the IC, are hiring for pink plus hair, transgender cross-dressers, lesbian allies and partners, catamites, pederasts, and idiot savants. Female civilian think tank careerists of indeterminant gender, lacking military experience, run DOD. These are Hedley Lamarr employees. Individuals of these descriptions are unaware of the facts of nuclear conflict and will obdurately work from impulses not pacific even if they were aware of those facts. Their entire being shouts, "Ignore reality, implement ideology!"
My counsel: God only knows the enormity of what is afoot and what to do about it. Our duty at this time is to sketch out and test, by all means available, what is humanly and nationally beneficial on the other side, once its energy is spent, of this rolling disaster the same God, for reasons known only to Him, has seen fit to throw over us.
A really great article. Which I generally agree with. MAD -- assures us that nuclear war is exactly that "mad", "madness". Since the world dies. In the 20th Century there WERE a few near misses. In each case, which we know about -- since there may have been more unreported. https://www.sciencealert.com/near-misses-nuclear-war-history-cold-war-radar-missiles Since then, the technology has improved-- but so has targeting. The Russians can shoot down American missiles with S500 and S550 systems; but the Americans are vulnerable to Russian (and Chinese) hypersonic weapons. Miniaturization has led to smaller and smaller nuclear weapons for tactical use. But such use envisions a WWII type war in Europe. The use of those weapons would still produce a lot of radiation. That is, more small nukes = one biggy. IMO, nukes are just not practical. Even the American use of DU weapons done long-term enviironmental and genetic damage. You will notice that Chinese and Russian hypersonic weapons are dual -use. The CAN carry nuclear warheads but in practice they carry conventional weapons whose effectiveness is enhanced by kinetic energy. So, why are nuclear weapons such a big thing? When talking about war, the usual mistake-- one which the Americans make-- is to see everything framed by WWII. In terms of THAT war, the Americans say, "See what our little A bombs did to Japan-- we got bigger ones now". Fine, but would the Americans have used those bombs, if the Japanese had them too -- and delivery systems for them? Nuclear weapons are to US military types as dicks are to jocks -- something to flaunt, not to use. The WWII "frame" has other implications. For example, the US military spends trillions on carriers, which are the modern equivalent of Japanese battleships -- huge floating targets -- and good only against goat herders. The military is always talking about a Chinese D-Day type assault on Taiwan. Not going to happen. The Chinese could take Taiwan without such an assault, using the Russian strategy in Ukraine. Take out radars, suppress air defenses, destroy foritifications and fixed assets from the air. "Kettle" the island. If you look at my substack site (news forensics) you can see various articles on this. https://julianmacfarlane.substack.com/p/china-wins-the-us-loses
Thank you for your writings, particularly for this text. I feel a tad less concerned. ;) Still there are two points I find unsettling:
What about small, tactical nukes? When the Ukrain war began, this was my immediate worry: if the west would support Ukraine beyond whatever serious red lines Russia has, wouldnt they be tempted to use just one tactical nuke to give the west one last, big warning? Couldnt things really get out of hand then?
And: what about the quality, the competence of western politicians at this point? I think, you yourself, over at different blog, found some not so friendly words to describe the kind of people who are currently making careers in politics, specially in foreign politics. Rather ideologes than experts.