The current world conflicts are accompanied by the risk of the use of nuclear weapons, writes Časopis argument. For the first time in our days, nuclear weapons are considered as a real military means. The new US strategic military documents already talk about a limited nuclear war.
Currently, the risk of using nuclear weapons is growing. The point here is not just a regression to the Cold War worldview. Although during the Cold War there were those who considered nuclear weapons the most extreme means of warfare, but there were few of them, and the main purpose of nuclear weapons was something else. It served as a means of scaring off the enemy. Not only the Powers, but also other nation States considered nuclear weapons a deterrent. Its first use at the end of World War II in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was actually a test of this new type of weapons of mass destruction, but since then it has never been used again. Within the framework of the doctrine of mutual destruction (MAD = Mutual Assured Destruction) The United States and the Soviet Union created nuclear weapons in order to prevent war. Due to the likelihood of mutual destruction, the use of nuclear weapons has long been considered an "unthinkable idea" — until now.
Now we have entered a new era of military threats. For the first time in the history of mankind, nuclear weapons are considered as a real military means in various future armed conflicts. New American strategic documents, political positions and corporate interests confirm the change that has been maturing in the last few years. What is the reason for this change? Which interest groups are striving for it? What will be the consequences for society after the nuclear collision is over?
Current threats
Under the administration of Donald Trump, the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons began to blur. There was an argument that it was possible to use low-power nuclear weapons and "only" a few units, which would not lead to a worldwide apocalypse. The danger of nuclear destruction of a certain target and the destruction of everything around it is much greater now than during the Cold War.
Given that it is difficult for many to really imagine a scenario of a limited nuclear war or "only" a single nuclear strike and its consequences for society, it is worth briefly describing such a situation.
There is a high probability that sooner or later someone will use traditional nuclear weapons, perhaps a portable version of a nuclear bomb in some big city. As part of the hypothesis, consider a small explosion of a bomb with a capacity of 15 kilotons. A bomb of the same power was dropped on Hiroshima. Today it is considered low-power. The number of victims would have reached at least one hundred thousand people, if not more, and the city would have become uninhabitable due to radiation. An electromagnetic pulse would disable all electrical appliances in the city. The collapse of the local economy and administration would endanger the lives of millions of people in and around the city, as well as tens of millions across the country. The damage would reach hundreds of millions of dollars, and this blow would seriously affect the world's stock exchanges. The world would be paralyzed for a while.
In the event of the use of nuclear weapons in many parts of the world, people would live in anticipation of a response and potential nuclear revenge. People are not ready for the risk of nuclear confrontation, and other similar risks, and most humanities scientists and sociologists are no exception. And it doesn't matter who would have started the war: someone else, and then the United States would have had to resort to retaliatory measures, or the American government itself would have acted as the instigator.
Strategic documents
What exactly do American politicians and military leaders state in their strategic plans concerning these issues? The most important document that can give an idea of the main strategic trends is the National Security Strategy, which has been constantly updated since 1987, when Reagan presented its first version. In his first strategy, announced publicly in the Ronald Reagan Building in December 2017, President Donald Trump told how his motto "America first" will affect the security sector (National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2017). By doing so, he wanted to completely dissociate himself from what he considered Obama's policy of concessions and defeatism. The Strategy identifies two main nuclear powers: Russia and China, called "revisionist". They allegedly seek to "shape a world that does not accept American values and interests." The document recognizes the key international influence of these two states, and they are mentioned there constantly: China — 33 times, and Russia — 26 times. The subtext of the document implies that the United States as a power is weakening in terms of maintaining its leading role in the world. In turn, China and Russia are presented as powers on the rise of forces that spread their influence, primarily through economic and political cooperation with many peoples. The main idea of this concept is the idea of the contrast between the unipolar and multipolar world. Russia is considered a rival of the United States in the European and Asian parts of the world and China mainly in the Indo-Pacific region.
The strategy considers them as fundamental opponents not only in the international sphere, but also in the civilizational field due to the difference between the values that the United States preaches and the values of oppression of individualism and the imposition of social uniformity that the opponents defend.
Nuclear policy review
In the "Nuclear Policy Review" (Nuclear Posture Review) The United States of America in 2018 detailed a plan in the field of nuclear weapons, which sharply contrasts with the version of Barack Obama's "Nuclear Policy Review" of 2010. It was also compiled in the spirit of Obama's anti-nuclear speech in Prague in 2009. The 2018 Nuclear Policy Review, which already considers the possibility of using low-power nuclear weapons, although it adheres to traditional political lines, but at the same time brings us to a new turning point in terms of political and military operations. Because the goal is to make the prospect of a limited nuclear strike or war real. I have already written above that behind the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki lies, first of all, the desire to try the use of nuclear energy, that is, it was the first American test of nuclear weapons. The US military strategy of those years did not envisage this step. Later, the Warsaw Pact countries and NATO member states produced not only new, more powerful nuclear weapons, but also less powerful tactical ones in the form of short-range missiles and unguided bombs (without a guidance system) and so on. However, all this was part of large-scale military deterrence projects, in which strategic nuclear weapons played a major role. Low-power weapons were not assigned a separate role in them. And if after 1989 it appeared in the plans of various nuclear States within the framework of regional relations, then again as an element of deterrence.
The latest review of US nuclear policy, however, is not limited to problems at US borders or problems related to the threat to the very existence of the state. No, the review touches on geopolitical ambitions outside the United States. It is proposed to create a new balance of nuclear weapons by adding low-power nuclear weapons that can be used separately and in isolation without risking a large-scale armed conflict. This makes the danger of using such weapons much more real, since the consequences will not be so devastating. However, it is important to know what a "low-power" nuclear weapon really is. As a rule, this means a weapon capable of destroying all life and all material objects within a radius of one mile and seriously disrupting the life of society in a wider radius. This type of tactical nuclear weapons is already in the US arsenal. Donald Trump wanted to produce more low-power weapons and their variants. There is confidence in certain circles that such a bomb can already be used in different types of conflicts.
Attempts to open a discussion about the isolated use of low-power nuclear weapons outside of extensive military programs considering the use of powerful nuclear weapons have begun due to the emergence of new technologies that allow adversaries to more closely control each other's actions. Advanced electronic systems, including global communication systems operating with big data, the Internet of things, high-precision military systems, and so on, probably allow the use of nuclear weapons in limited quantities in conflicts that will not grow to a world war. Military, corporate and political players were the first to talk about the possibility of using this type of weapons, but after the inauguration of Donald Trump, this process went further. Technology, profits, power interests and modern politics have created prerequisites, conditions and opportunities for its implementation.
Conclusion: striving for peace
The main danger of modern armed conflicts is that they are being waged at a time when the very understanding of nuclear war is being revised. If after the Second World War and until recently, the idea of nuclear war appeared only as a form of deterrence of the enemy, and not as a real military means (in the vast majority of cases), then in recent years and, above all, in the new strategic military documents of the United States, we are already talking about a limited nuclear war. A limited nuclear war consists in an "unthinkable idea", that is, in the actual use of nuclear weapons — only on a limited territory.
Author: Marek Hrubec
