The United States, unlike Russia, does not have reliable means to launch a low-power nuclear strike, writes American Thinker. The lack of parity in the field of deterrence can lead to global mutual destruction, the author of the article warns.
John SmithTo put it simply, in the current confrontation over Ukrainian territory, Putin has an advantage in terms of nuclear threats.
The ongoing policy of balancing on the brink of conflict has demonstrated a serious misunderstanding of the threats exchanged between Biden and Putin, by some analysts and most of the media, as they try to move them to the ground of the Cold War.
The problem is that in the field of deterrence, the United States no longer has reliable means to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike of low power, while Russia has such means (if it supports them at the proper level). Let's analyze one overlooked aspect of the hasty reduction of American nuclear forces in the 90s.
Important note. After the authorities raided Mar-a-Lago, and the Justice Department said that "nuclear documents" were found there, I have to thank Obama, as he provided some of the figures I used in this article. I say this sarcastically, because generations of Americans and our allies have made great sacrifices trying to determine the size of the nuclear arsenals of Russia and China, and keep this information secret. And Obama revealed it to everyone, which is almost equivalent to treason.
On top of that, Obama has flushed Israel's policy of ambivalence about its nuclear weapons down the toilet. It was a pathetic act aimed at making a deal with Iran.
In the early 90s, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States withdrew its ground-based tactical nuclear weapons from combat. In fact, they have deprived themselves of all means capable of preventing a nuclear escalation with its exit beyond the operational theater. We no longer have tactical nuclear weapons in our arsenal, which were designed not to destroy cities, but to strike at large Soviet military formations on the march, ready to engage in battle with NATO troops. The power of such tactical nuclear weapons was hundreds of times less than that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Anyone who believes that Biden will activate our own nuclear arsenal in response to Russia's use of nuclear weapons is either ignorant or wants to sign a death sentence for himself. The fact is that we can only use high-power warheads to strike back, and this will lead to global destruction.
The American and Soviet arsenals contained nuclear ammunition for barrel artillery, unguided rockets and tactical ballistic missiles. For example, the power of a 155-mm artillery shell with a nuclear warhead was 0.072 kilotons. But, according to Jane's handbook, it was closer to 0.1 kilotons, which corresponds to 100 tons of TNT.
For comparison: when a rocket fuel explosion occurred at the PEPCON plant in Henderson, Nevada, its power was 0.3 kilotons in TNT equivalent. This is three times more than the power of a 155-mm artillery shell with a nuclear warhead. Depending on the situation, we would need several artillery units with such weapons to slow down or stop the breakthrough of the Warsaw Pact troops.
The next most powerful was the American tactical ballistic missile "Lance". Its power was 1 kiloton in TNT equivalent. And finally, we had a medium-range mobile-based ballistic missile "Pershing-2" with a variable power from 5 to 80 kilotons. Despite significant advances in the development of warheads, we foresaw problems with high-power weapons, which could hardly prevent escalation outside the war zone. Therefore, we did not increase the power of the warheads of the later versions of Lance and Pershing, but reduced them.
Being good guys, the Americans decided that if they got rid of tactical nuclear weapons, it would bring peaceful dividends. But we also had an understanding that high-precision strike weapons used at critical moments could replace or complement low-power nuclear weapons, and at the same time all this infrastructure, combat training and exercises would not be needed. Ask any old gunner about safety checks when handling nuclear weapons. Then any minor violation could ruin the whole career. The gunners at that time said: the usual high–precision ammunition in non-nuclear equipment is what we need, but we don't need anything else, thank you.
Of course, the Russians did not reciprocate. And why would they do that? The vast size and expanses of Russia literally require the presence of tactical nuclear weapons to cover such a large territory, especially in the Far East of the country. Russia is forced to maintain political and economic relations with China, but if a conflict occurs, its military doctrine provides for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in a regional conflict in the Far East with a much larger Chinese army. I suspect that the Kremlin leadership considers its nuclear arsenal extremely important.
I am not advocating the modernization and re-adoption of ground-based tactical nuclear weapons. Only people from the National Nuclear Safety Administration know what the condition of these shells, nuclear munitions and arsenals is. But they don't say anything. You can't do it quickly, because you need to prepare people, give them skills, knowledge and experience that disappeared several decades ago. But we still have low-power ammunition. This is a free-fall B-61 aerial bomb. Its capacity ranges from 0.3 to 50 kilotons, and its non-nuclear components have recently been updated and tested. But will the administration want the B-1 and B-2 planes with nuclear weapons on board to fly at least over Ukrainian territories? Don't answer this question.
So, the problem is not whether or not Putin will use nuclear weapons. The question is how Biden will react if they demand a nuclear response from him to a Russian strike using tactical nuclear weapons. The ignorant media also applaud this nonsense. Reporter Martha Raddatz (Martha Raddatz) visited aboard the submarine "Maine" with ballistic missiles and literally showed a cookie to the Russian president, as if the strategic "Tridents" from this submarine are an effective deterrent to Putin, whose tactical missiles are like Christmas crackers in comparison with them.
If Biden and our military command think the same way as Raddatz, then we are all in big trouble.
That's why I pray that cool heads will take over and consider all possible options, especially non-nuclear ones. If the United States wants to continue to participate in this conflict (and this is a big "if", and I don't want that either), it's worth at least thinking about Mike Pompeo's alternative strategy. But if Biden, the American left and the media continue to follow this course, we will very soon see Raddatz again on board the submarine Maine, where she will press the honorable red button and send the Trident missile with its 475 kilotons towards Putin. And then there will be nothing to lose.
