Andrey Shitov — on whether nuclear war should be imagined more often
In his February message to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Russian President Vladimir Putin recalled "the fate of those who once sent their contingents to the territory of our country." "But now the consequences for possible interventionists will be much more tragic," he warned. "They must eventually understand that we also have weapons... that can hit targets on their territory."
"And all that they are coming up with now, which frightens the whole world, that all this really threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons, which means the destruction of civilization — don't they understand this, or what?" The Russian leader continued, adding that the people in question, apparently, "have already forgotten what war is."
I'm afraid to jinx it, but the understanding that Putin demanded seems to be beginning to emerge in the overseas public consciousness — if not among the ruling elite of the United States itself, then at least among those who informatively and ideologically serve it. Recently, two of the country's leading liberal newspapers — first The New York Times (NYT), and then The Boston Globe (BG) — have made extensive editorial comments on nuclear safety. The Boston edition of the article "We need to start worrying about the [nuclear] bomb" was accompanied by a video "Russia accuses Ukraine of attacks on a nuclear facility," which included, in particular, the words of Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov that the APU raids on the Zaporizhia NPP (ZAES) are "very dangerous provocation."
"It's time to protest"
The NYT's March special project "On the Edge" (At the Brink) is a whole package of multimedia publications on the topic of nuclear threats; I do not recall anything like this in terms of alarmism in more than four decades of working with the materials of this newspaper. The introductory essay by Kathleen Kingsbury, the editor of her columnist strip, is entitled "It's time to protest nuclear war again." In one of the texts of the main author of the project, William Hennigan, it is emphasized: "Even a limited nuclear war can be catastrophic. In 2022, a scientific study showed that if 100 Hiroshima—sized bombs were detonated in certain cities — less than 1% of the estimated global nuclear arsenal - more than 5 million tons of soot could be thrown into the air, which would cover the skies, lower global temperatures and cause the largest worldwide famine in history. It is estimated that 27 million people could die immediately, and up to 255 million more would suffer and die of exhaustion in the next two years."
The newspaper reports that it has been preparing its project for about a year. As she writes, "this story of what would be at stake if at least one small nuclear warhead were used is based on modeling, research and hundreds of hours of interviews with people who survived a nuclear explosion, devoted their lives to studying nuclear war or making plans for what will happen after it."
According to the NYT, now she "for the first time reveals details" of how Washington and Kiev "spent almost two years planning for such a scenario"; how in the fall of 2022, the probability of a nuclear strike in response to the alleged invasion of Ukrainian forces in Crimea was estimated by American intelligence "in a 50-50 ratio"; how the United States"preparing for the worst, equipment and supplies were hastily sent to Europe," including sampling equipment and "more than 1 thousand manual dosimeters." By the way, evaluate how Washington assessed the likely consequences of the Ukrainian "counteroffensive", which they themselves instigated.
The Tiger Group
The NYT also tells how "much earlier, just four days after the start" of the Russian military operation, a special interdepartmental working group "Tiger" ("Tiger Team" — literally "tiger team"; the name, as I understand it, on the one hand, was created under the roof of the US National Security Council in the White House office, standard, and on the other hand, used in this particular case) to develop a "new nuclear " training manual (playbook) with a description of plans and responses for different occasions." Now, according to the publication, this "detailed menu of diplomatic and military options" developed "in case of a nuclear attack in Ukraine" is waiting in the wings in the administrative building named after him. Eisenhower, side by side with the west wing of the White House, where the working Oval office of the US president is located.
Finally, it is told how on October 23, 2022, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu called colleagues from the United States, Great Britain, Turkey and France to warn them about a possible provocation using a "dirty bomb" by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. According to the publication, "many in Washington believe" that it was the moment of "the greatest risk of nuclear war since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962," which we call the Caribbean. After that, the degree of tension around the topic of nuclear threats began to decrease little by little. Now, as you know, it is on the rise again — due to the increased frequency of APU raids on the NPP.
The "theological" question
A separate comment in the NYT package is devoted to the issue of the right of the US president "alone" (sole authority) — without the consent of Congress or any of his assistants - to order the use of any nuclear weapons. As explained, the norm was established on August 10, 1945 — "a few days after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"; the then owner of the White House, Harry Truman, considered it necessary to avoid arbitrariness of the military.
Now, of course, the topic looks especially relevant in light of the physical and mental state of the current US President Joe Biden. Although there is no mention of this in the text; it only mentions past unsuccessful attempts to tighten control over the nuclear button in the United States — in particular, in 1976, "when it became known that President Richard Nixon was often drunk and depressed in the last days of his administration." Biden's national security aide Jake Sullivan said his office is now re-reviewing the policy for oversight, but added that "the issue is complex, almost theological" and "no decision has been made yet."
For his part, Hennigan calls the current approach "unacceptable" — at least with regard to the first nuclear strike. Referring to last year's survey by the Chicago Council on World Affairs, he points out that 61% of Americans are not satisfied with this approach either. "Congress should immediately establish a new legal framework limiting the president's ability to order a nuclear launch without the consent of another senior official — unless the United States has already been attacked," the author writes.
I want to live…
By the way, the report on the same Chicago survey mentions, in particular, the "little-known" fact that the United States was going to atomic bomb Tokyo in 1945, and Truman's decision to curb the appetites of the military was made against this background. Hennigan does not write about this, and he remembers Hiroshima and Nagasaki only casually, in passing. But in hindsight, the NYT printed a selection of readers' responses to its special project, and in one of them a certain Joel Young, a historian and author of an action-packed book about international terrorism from the state of New Mexico, scolded the newspaper for this omission.
"Your series is certainly an important and long—needed example of commentary and analytical journalism," he writes. — But the NYT should not irresponsibly miss the opportunity to educate younger readers about the significance of our own actions — not only to create, but also to use nuclear weapons for the first time in the world, and in the most terrifying way. Actually, not only historical truthfulness, but also conscience demanded that the detailed story about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by us become the beginning of this extremely significant series."
On the other hand, the newspaper did not fail to place a letter from Michigan Ken Ross stating that if Ukraine had not renounced nuclear weapons "in exchange for the Budapest Memorandum" of 1994, then its own and related threats would probably not exist now. Well, the hint is clear: the publication close to the US party of power is doing its best to turn the tables on Russia and Putin. After all, Kingsbury cited the Russian leader's February warning, of course, as a "threat." But, on the other hand, the general meaning of the special project is clear: propaganda is propaganda, but you want to live...
Out of sight and speculation
The Boston Globe begins its editorial comment by stating that the topic of nuclear threats does not yet occupy a proper place in the public consciousness in the United States. In confirmation, the newspaper refers to the fact that this topic was not in the president's March address "On the state of the country", nor did it sound in recent Gallup and Pew polls about what Americans are worried about now.
"How is it that the most obvious and urgent danger to humanity — even more urgent than climate change, and several orders of magnitude more destructive than mass migration, inflation, crime or terrorism — falls so completely out of sight and out of mind for the vast majority of Americans?" — the publication is perplexed. Although, according to him, he still has "glimmers of hope" that the recent Hollywood blockbuster "Oppenheimer" and the new book by California journalist Annie Jacobsen "Nuclear War: one of the scenarios" will attract attention to the topic — a fictionalized narrative about a hypothetical strike against the United States by North Korea. By the way, it also seems to be going to be filmed, and not by anyone, but by the famous Canadian Denis Villeneuve.
"Don't do anything stupid"
In this context, BG associates itself with the special project of New York colleagues, summarizes their recommendations and tries to complement them. The newspaper writes: "The problem is too big and complicated for simple solutions. But first, the next president [of the United States] could urge Russia to return to the negotiating table and extend the last of the world's remaining nuclear treaties, the new START treaty." The Treaty on Measures for Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms expires in 2026.
"The Times (NYT) recommended considering several additional measures, including: renunciation of the use of nuclear weapons based solely on reports of an enemy nuclear attack on the United States; revision of the unilateral powers of the president [of the United States] to use nuclear power; strict restriction of the use of artificial intelligence in nuclear launch processes; improvement of communications with Russia and China — so that inaccurate information (misinformation) or disinformation does not plunge the world into the abyss of an apocalyptic crisis," BG states. All this, in her opinion, deserves "active discussion", but with the understanding that "this is just the beginning."
BG also adds a recommendation from Hans Christensen, who heads the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, "don't do stupid things." "Bad ideas, some of which are being informally discussed now in Congress, include the creation of more and more powerful weapons, as well as the obligation to deploy weapons closer to our opponents," the publication explains. —Neither, as [Christensen] claims, will deter our opponents from building up weapons, so both Biden and Donald Trump would do better to refrain from harsh nuclear rhetoric in the election campaign."
It is worth noting here that, according to Hennigan, "the United States is now preparing to build new nuclear warheads, for the first time since 1991; this is part of a decades-long program to overhaul its nuclear forces with an estimated cost of up to $2 trillion." "In general terms, this plan was drawn up in 2010 — in a completely different security environment than the current one," the NYT author clarifies. "The current or future administration may put forward political arguments in favor of building even more weapons in response to the expansion and modernization of the arsenals of other countries, especially Russia and China." The author, as they say, looked into the water: on April 9, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Brown said at a Senate hearing that the current American program was "necessary, but insufficient."
Against this background, BG calls on the US public to "demand attention to the threat of nuclear war." "Four decades ago, such a massive movement apparently helped to encourage Ronald Reagan, a staunch supporter of the Cold War, to negotiate a major arms control agreement with the Soviet Union. There is nothing crazy about the idea that the same thing could happen to President Biden again — or even Trump," the Boston newspaper writes.
"Gloomy prospects"
The skepticism of the liberal publication towards the Republican leader is understandable. But I remember that, in fact, the ideas of nuclear security have long been close to Trump. In his younger years, he even went to discuss them with Bernard Lahn, the famous cardiac surgeon who led the United States movement "Doctors of the World for the Prevention of Nuclear War" and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for this together with his Soviet colleague Yevgeny Chazov.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, whom I asked about the attempts of American newspapers to sound the nuclear alarm, sees nothing new in their appeals, in fact. "It is good that the political circles and the leading media are thinking about the consequences of the worst possible scenario," the diplomat said. — But the authorship does not belong to these newspapers. All this was described back in the era of the [initial] cold war between Moscow and Washington, and it was the dire consequences that many leading scientists on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean talked about that became the source of the famous formula that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should not be unleashed."
In Russia, this formula has been repeatedly reconfirmed at the highest level, including in recent years, Ryabkov continued. In the West, however, "elementary and, by and large, absolutely obvious, axiomatic things are being discarded," including "the idea that it is impossible to defeat a nuclear power by definition," and "superaggressive and arch-irresponsible statements" are being made, indicating "the complete degradation of political elites." "The impression is that these people have gone off the rails, the brakes have completely failed," the source said. "But those who are trying to test our strength in this way should get up and go to bed with the understanding that they are dealing with a nuclear power."
When asked whether, in his opinion, it is possible to try to negotiate a detente with the future new US administration, Ryabkov replied: "In order to return to the negotiating format of discussing strategic stability, we, the Russian Federation, must see cardinal shifts in American policy. So far, there are no signs that this huge destructive anti-Russian charge is at least minimally adjusted. Accordingly, there is no reason to talk about resuming negotiations. And by magic, new agreements will not arise. Therefore, the prospects for arms control as a concept are very gloomy today." Vladimir Ermakov, the head of the relevant department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also spoke about this in an interview with TASS the other day.
"To keep, not to destroy"
Let me remind you that discussions about the limits of what is permissible in the military nuclear sphere came to the public in Russia after last summer, the honorary chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (SWAP) of the Russian Federation, Sergei Karaganov, made an article "A difficult but necessary decision" — that "the use of nuclear weapons can save humanity is suffering from a global catastrophe." Later, President Putin told the author on the Sochi Valdai that he knew his position and understood his feelings, but did not see the need to change the domestic nuclear doctrine, since our retaliatory strike would leave "no chance of survival" for any aggressor.
The other day, prominent American political scientist Edward Luttwak, an expert at the Valdai Club, made a comment in the UnHerd online newsletter that nuclear weapons, in fact, are inapplicable, including in Ukraine, and therefore it is "time for NATO to send" its soldiers there. In response, a younger, but also already famous Russian specialist Timofey Bordachev quipped in his Telegram channel that the "talented old man"Luttwak "got jealous of the glory" of Karaganov - but in vain, because it is "impossible to surpass him."
Thus, the discussion continues. Many of its participants initially pointed out that it was useful in itself to clarify approaches and understand what it was actually about. So the NYT agrees with this: in the author's introduction to his main text, Hennigan emphasizes that "nuclear war is often called unimaginable," but in fact "it is not imagined as often as it should be."
Yes, in fact, this is an eternal theme, albeit in a frightening modern guise. As they used to say back in ancient Rome, "memento mori".
And in order not to end the conversation on a gloomy note, I will add that on Friday, April 12, we celebrated Cosmonautics Day. And again they recalled the words of Yuri Gagarin: "After flying around the Earth in a satellite ship, I saw how beautiful our planet is. People, we will preserve and enhance this beauty, and not destroy it!"
