Is There A Possibility Of Nuclear War In Europe? – OpEd

Is not one reminded of British army officer and former commander of the UK & NATO Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Forces, Hamish de Bretton Gordon’s explanation of the crucial differences between “tactical” and “strategic” weapons and why all-out nuclear war probably isn’t on the cards anytime soon? 

Hamish de Bretton Gordon explained the difference between ‘strategic’ and ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons. Bretton-Gordon said  – strategic nuclear weapons are Armageddon. Russia and the West (including the United States, Britain, and France) both have almost 6,000 warheads each, according to the Federation of Nuclear Scientists, which is pretty much enough to change the planet as we know it. This is called Mutually Assured Destruction, with the rather ironic acronym MAD. 

These warheads are fitted to Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) which can travel thousands of miles and are aimed at key sites and cities in the US, UK, France, and Russia. Tactical nuclear weapons meanwhile are much smaller warheads with a yield, or explosive power, of up to 100 kilotons of dynamite – rather than roughly 1000 kilotons for strategic warheads. That said, tactical nuclear weapons could still create huge amounts of damage, and if fired at a nuclear power station could create a chain reaction and contamination on a scale with a nuclear strike. 

Recently President Putin ordered his military to move Russia’s “deterrent forces” – which include nuclear weapons – “ to a special mode of combat duty”. Western analysts are not very clear about what the phrase means. Some think Putin was ordering a move from the lowest alert level, “constant”, to the next level up, “elevated”, (with “military danger” and “full” still above readiness.  Each move increases readiness for weapons to be used. Many though have interpreted the move primarily as a form of public signaling, rather than indicating a real intent to use such weapons, which Putin knows will bring nuclear retaliation by the West.

Was it a new warning? Again Putin had warned in more coded language that if other countries interfered with Russia’s plans they would face consequences the “like of which they have never seen”. That was widely interpreted as a warning for NATO not to become directly militarily involved in Ukraine. NATO has always been clear it will not do that, knowing it could trigger direct conflict with Russia which could escalate into nuclear war. Recent warnings were more direct and public. Why the new warning? Putin said the move was in response to “aggressive statements”. Then the Kremlin said this referred to statements by Western officials, including former UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, about possible clashes and confrontations with NATO. Western officials also believe the new warning has come because Putin may have miscalculated over Ukraine. He may have underestimated how much resistance he would face on the battlefield in Ukraine. And he underestimated how far the West would unite in a tough response with sanctions. That has left him reaching for new options and tougher talk. “This is a sign of anger, frustration, and disappointment,” one recently retired British general told me. 

The US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield suggested this language is part of Putin’s effort to justify the war in Ukraine by claiming it is not an aggressor but one under threat and seeking to defend itself. Seen in this way, the nuclear alert is a way of emphasizing this message to his people. Another way of seeing it is that Putin is worried about Western plans to provide military assistance to the Ukrainians and wants to warn them about not doing too much. Another is that he is worried that sanctions, which he referenced in his announcement, are designed to cause unrest and overthrow his government. But the overall message seems to be a warning to NATO that if it becomes directly involved events could escalate.

What are the risks? Even if Putin’s threat is meant as a warning rather than signaling any current desire to use the weapons, there is always the risk of miscalculation if one side misinterprets the other or events get out of hand. A concern is that Putin has become isolated and out of touch, with few of his advisers willing to tell him the truth. Some fear his judgment is becoming erratic. Some hope though that if he did go too far, others further down the chain of command might not be willing to carry out orders. The risks of any nuclear conflict may have gone up slightly but they remain low. 

The US military has its defense readiness alert status known as Defcon, and the White House Press Secretary said there was “no reason to change” its nuclear alert levels at the moment. The UK has nuclear-armed submarines at sea and is also unlikely to say anything publicly. The aim appears to be to treat the Russian statement as a bluster and not increase tensions by appearing to take it too seriously or take any actions that might spark a Russian response. This is not currently a nuclear crisis and it must not become one.  Will the West know what Russia is doing? Former UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told the BBC that the UK had not seen any change yet in the actual posture of Russia’s nuclear weapons. 

During the Cold War, a huge intelligence machine was created in the West to watch Moscow’s nuclear arsenal. Satellites, intercepted communications, and other sources were analyzed to look for any signs of changes in behavior – like preparing weapons or crews for bombers – that would offer warning. Much of that remains in place and the West will be now watching Russian activity closely to understand if there is going to be any significant behavior change. There has been no sign, so far.

In the ultimate analysis, the enmeshed world with China as a growing power seeking its claim to be dominant in Asia and dislodge the US from its position as the only superpower in the world following the Yalta Agreement for long fifty years with a world bound by so-called “rule-based world” to be broken at will is now being challenged by a multipolar world where the US has to carry with it the Global Right in any venture that may bring about the end of mankind the world has known for thousands of years with the added cost of the US being no more in existence.