Nuclear War Is Not and Should Not Be Unthinkable

[jbg]

In responding to an e-mail from a friend defending former President JFK's rather lackluster record, one of his shortcomings was committing the US to a Test Ban Treaty. I feel that Western politicians have done their citizens a grave disservice by playing up the unthinkability of nuclear war. Rather than educating the public on the fact that nukes are essentially defensive weapons (except for the very rare case of attacking an island nation such as Japan), he allowed the Americans to buy into the doomsday scenarios our Fourth Grade teaches liked so much to scare us with. This myth was illustrated by, among other things, pictures of little girls picking daisies and then being brutally blown away by a mushroom cloud, an image from LBJ's 1964 Presidential campaign to dramatize Goldwater's "brutality".

As Luttwak pointed out in the August 1982 issue of Commentary (PDF of article linked but I will e-mail by PM'd request), nukes are far more valuable as a "tripwire" weapon to be used against a conventional Soviet attack. In other words, everyone knew that any conventional attack would be a "westbound" attack from the Reds, and not an "eastbound" attack. A conventional response, as Luttwak points out, would be futile since keeping the entire Iron Curtain supplied with the necessary depth of troops was fiscally impossible. Remember the fate of the Maginot and Bar-Lev lines.

The only reason that the Soviets did not mount such a conventional attack is that they knew that the West would respond with nuclear weapons. Thus, even if they proceeded to incinerate the West, they would be taking over ground which they had just attacked with their nukes, and would be incinerated themselves. We would, for the same reason, have zero incentive to make unprovoked use of nukes, and in addition it is very rare that democracies start unprovoked wars. Thus, the Test Ban treaty (putting aside any verification issues) had the effect of crippling our ability to refine a weapon of greater use to the democracies, i.e. nuclear weapons, and prohibiting the Soviets from doing something they wouldn't necessarily do anyway.

It is worthy of note that the Soviet method of "developing" weapons was espionage, far easier in an open society than in a closed society where all communications are monitored. For a price, the disloyalty of low- to mid-level scientists could be bought. Since the Soviets are rarely on the cutting edge of technology (Sputnik aside) espionage is of little value to us.

While this article covered events that were current in 1982, that is, the "nuclear freeze" movement, its points remain valid today. The West, with its high per-capita investment in education for its military-age people, and its social programs, can ill afford the massive expansion of conventional power needed to reign in modern day nemises such as the Islamofascists and a possibly resurgent Russia. Those who rail against nukes are the "useful idiots" our enemies so badly need.

[marcinmoka]

Since the Soviets are rarely on the cutting edge of technology (Sputnik aside)

Not to take away from the massive advancements on the American side, but while I despise the doings of the Soviet Union, I nonetheless do respect their scientific advancements and their embrace of fundamental research. While they lacked the financial resources, they had one thing going for them, and that was the shortage of funds prompted a great deal of ingenuity. There is a great deal of truth in the KISS principle.

Not to mention that both sides post war programs were given a tremendous boost by 'appropriating' (paychecks and amnesty on the American side, threat of death on the Soviet one) Nazi era primary research.

The West, with its high per-capita investment in education for its military-age people, and its social programs, can ill afford the massive expansion of conventional power needed to reign in modern day nemises such as the Islamofascists and a possibly resurgent Russia. Those who rail against nukes are the "useful idiots" our enemies so badly need.

In principle, yes I agree. In practice, its not necessarily a bad idea to keep quiet on the nuclear issue. The U.S and it's allies maintain a sophisticated, credible deterant despite all that is being said and done. By keeping mum on the issue, you at least minimize the risk of the issue being skewed and used for fear mongering by the media, and political pressures which would ensue. The media sensilization seems more of key threat to maintaining a suitable deterant force.

Edited November 27, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Higgly]

Pure scare-mongering. The Islamofascists. Good grief. You want to use nuclear weapons to do battle with a bunch of guys in Toyota trucks using RPGs? You are crazy.

The use of nuclear weapons in modern warfare is unnecessary and just a tad crazy. If you stay with conventional weapons, you have a chance of having something left on the ground you can work with when the whole thing is over. What have you got if you use nukes?

I can see possessing nuclear weapons: the genie is out of the bottle and it is the only deterrent to nuclear weapons that others may have.

As for Luttwak, the idea of the Russians launching a conventional attack on North America through what, Alaska? is pretty far-fetched. The country was devastated after the second world war, had to worry about China on its southern flank (especialy after Nixon) and went bankrupt trying to keep up with the arms race. The Russians didn't even have enough juice to wage conventional war against the Chinese for crying out loud.

Those who support nuclear weapons against conventional warfare are the "useful idiots" playing into the hands of the military-industrial complex Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about.

[Peter F]

As Luttwak pointed out in the August 1982 issue of Commentary (PDF of article linked but I will e-mail by PM'd request), nukes are far more valuable as a "tripwire" weapon to be used against a conventional Soviet attack. In other words, everyone knew that any conventional attack would be a "westbound" attack from the Reds, and not an "eastbound" attack. A conventional response, as Luttwak points out, would be futile since keeping the entire Iron Curtain supplied with the necessary depth of troops was fiscally impossible. Remember the fate of the Maginot and Bar-Lev lines.

The only reason that the Soviets did not mount such a conventional attack is that they knew that the West would respond with nuclear weapons.

Okay. I can swallow that the West threatened to make use of nukes should the Warsaw Pact invade Europe, rather than field a huge army as a deterrent.

But I don't see the connection between the threat from the Warsaw Pact and the threat from 'Islamofacists'. The two are not the same at all.

Luttwak's entire piece is about the Warsaw Pacts huge superiority in Tanks, men and artillery all massed in East Germany and Czeckoslovakia and how nukes would deter the threatened invasion.

What islamofacist army is threatening the same?

The use of nuclear weapons against and invading WP army was a militarily sensible, albeit terrible, option in that a few well placed nukes would considerably reduce the strength of the enemy whereas the use of western tanks, men, artillery and Airforce would not.

Luttwaks piece is based entirely upon 'conventional' forces.

But then you ignore that and claim 'Islamofacists' amount to the same thing as the Warsaw Pact. Therefore, you say, If nukes were good to counter the threat from the Warsaw Pact then nukes are good to counter the threat of Islamofacists.

Whats good for the goose may very well be whats good for the gander...but a racoon is not a gander nor a goose.

[trex]

As you do unto others, so will it be done unto you.

[GostHacked]

Nukes should be off the table. If one sees nuclear weapons as a defensive weapon, then why even complain when countries like Iran, North Korea (another example is India/Pakistan) develope nuclear weapons for self defence and to act as a deterrent from being attacked?

The Cold War against the Soviet Union was more or less an economic battle. The Soviets could not keep up with the US's IMC (industrial military complex). The Soviets were in their own borders. It had an identity, and the Reds were in the US's sights. That seemed definable.

The war on terror and 'islamofacists' is a harder war/battle to wage. The terrorists operate in every country for many reasons. So it is no longer a war about a certain peoples in a certain country. It is about terror throughout, and the control of everything. How can you use nuclear weapons against an entity that really has no geographical definition? How many countries can now be considered a target with the context of preemptive strike to combat terror and extreeeemism.

This is the reason we are in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nukes cannot be used effectively to attain the goals of ridding terrorism. We are using conventional forces and weapons. So yes nukes can still be considered a defensive weapon. The nuclear defence is needed after a convential offence. I am confused now.

How can nukes be considered defensive weapons? The Patriot Missle system is a defence weapon for sure. To defend against enemies weapons conventional or nuclear. Even if you have the Patriots as defence, then you can consider the incomming nuclear weapons as offensive.

[noahbody]

If one sees nuclear weapons as a defensive weapon, then why even complain when countries like Iran, North Korea (another example is India/Pakistan) develope nuclear weapons for self defence and to act as a deterrent from being attacked?

Nukes don't kill people. Crazy people kill people.

[M.Dancer]

How can nukes be considered defensive weapons?

Weapons whose reputations are so terrible that they deter attacks are defensive weapons. Also weapons like tactical nuclear artillery can be called defensive because once you use them, not only do you deny the enemy the terrirtory you attacked, you pretty well deny it to yourself, making an advance extremely difficult. I'm not saying you couldn't use tactical nukes offensively, but that is not how their use in envisioned (by NATO).

[Sulaco]

Weapons whose reputations are so terrible that they deter attacks are defensive weapons. Also weapons like tactical nuclear artillery can be called defensive because once you use them, not only do you deny the enemy the terrirtory you attacked, you pretty well deny it to yourself, making an advance extremely difficult. I'm not saying you couldn't use tactical nukes offensively, but that is not how their use in envisioned (by NATO).

An apropriate analysis.

I would think offensive use would be generally strategic and thus deep behind enemy lines. The equivalent of mass bombing raids on industrial centers or transportation hubs. Tactical use of nukes makes far more sense in terms of defensive action.

[ScottSA]

As for Luttwak, the idea of the Russians launching a conventional attack on North America through what, Alaska? is pretty far-fetched. The country was devastated after the second world war, had to worry about China on its southern flank (especialy after Nixon) and went bankrupt trying to keep up with the arms race. The Russians didn't even have enough juice to wage conventional war against the Chinese for crying out loud.

You gotta learn to stay away from the topic of international relations.

[Army Guy]

There is plenty of material out there that would and does suggest that Russia would use Nuk in either offense or defense modes. Russia has the mind set that any wpn they develope is meant and will be used in a combat threater. an unused wpn is a useless wpn...

x

This was confirmed by many sources, including ex soviet gens , plans found in east germany,the list goes on...it is part of thier tactics, it is how they train, etc etc ....

Most would say that russia would be sacraficing it's own soldiers in a radition enviroment...long term yes it is true, but that is acceptable losses for them...remember that one does not have to operate at ground zero, for obvious reasons, there is nothing left....but rather in the fringes of ground zero, combat formations exposure would be kept to a min....long term cas from exposure were not brought into the equations...

Tac nuks would be used on major NATO areas such as major airfields, major troops concentrations, major transportation hubs etc....Chem wpns would be used on smaller formations and hubs...while major air, land and sea attacks would concentrate on the rest....

As far as the MAD thing goes, NATO might not have the ability to strike from europe anyways....

NATO forces stationed in europe were only meant to delay Warsaw pact formations for 24 or more hours, until reinforcements could arrive from else where....which was a pipe dream of NATO's...no way they the US could deploy ground forces to europe in 24 hours...takes longer to load the ship...then there is travel time... and it would take thousands of ships to get the amont of troops and equipment needed to defend europe...as for the pre postioned stuff....yes nice idea but they need more than a corp size formation to stop the wall of soviet armour that would be decending from all pionts of the compass....

That being said the Soviets time table was unreleastic...even with the use of NUK's ....7 days to take most of europe "can't even drive a tank there in that time" But could it be done with the equipment they had on the front just before the wall came down...i would guess yes...and if they were slow at taking it, NATO would not have the troops left to retake or push them back...

So why did they not do it...i have no answer to that...perhaps the US had explained to them that they would attack mother russia with nuks ...i don't know....But to say that they did not have the equipment or man power to do so is wrong...they had NATO outmanned and out gunned atleast 10 to 1....without Nuks...

Edited November 28, 2007 by Army Guy

[ScottSA]

Nukes should be off the table. If one sees nuclear weapons as a defensive weapon, then why even complain when countries like Iran, North Korea (another example is India/Pakistan) develope nuclear weapons for self defence and to act as a deterrent from being attacked?

Because things are a bit more complicated than that.

Deterrence theory is a subject that took decades for two industrialized countries to choreograph. Had one or both been unstable during those decades, things might have been very different. Nukes are both offensive and defensive. Originally, both the US and USSR saw the use of nukes as tactical...simply a bigger bomb...to be used on the battlefield as well as city killers. The US, for the reasons outlined above, later defined them as purely strategic...the "tripwire" approach envisioned in MAD...but continued to play with the notion of tactical use in ideas like the "escalation ladder." Meanwhile, the strategic value of deterrence incorporated first, second, and third strike capabilities on value targets to ensure that neither side would remain unscathed in a conflict. The object was to make the cost of conflict too high to contemplate. Whatever one might think of the morality, it worked.

With Iran, it's a different thing. One of the side effects of nuclear deterence is that it supplies a nuclear deterrence umbrella under which conventional forces can operate. An invasion of a neighbour...say Iraq...by Iran, would be repulsed immediately by the US and surrounding neighbours. But what if Iran had nukes? Would everyone be so gung ho to repulse the invasion then, if Iran threatened to nuke another country if anyone interfered? Maybe, but now we're talking about a whole new level of uncertainty, and the chance for miscalculation significantly increases.

Iran is not Russia. Whatever Marx cooked up as a worldview was the progeny of a shared European heritage, based on the same ideation of values. During the cold war, the US and USSR shared the same goals; goals as fundamental as the notion that peace is a good unto itself...an idea that seems self-evident to us, but an idea not shared across the globe, even today. Iran, and indeed much of the east, simply doesn't look at the world the way we do. That is especially true in the case of Islam, which sees the world through the filter of Islam. Freedom, to Islam, is not a good at all. In fact, freedom is a rejection of Islam. Life to Islam is a preparation for death, and death is something to be valued over life in much the same way that Shinto or Viking warriors celebrated their entrance into the hereafter. Peace to Islam is incidental, and only good under certain conditions. We once thought that way too, not so long ago, before we decided that we'd be better red than dead, and adopted that viewpoint in the face of all comers.

All this is to say that with Iran, the dance fundamentally changes. It's not that Iran will be all about firing its nukes in every direction, but that it will be prone to miscalculation in the same way Hitler miscalculated over Poland. Europe has cringed repeatedly to all threats from the east, and a huge movement in the US is in favor of adopting cringing as a foreign policy as well, and Iran may well think that all it has to do is shove and the answer will be a retreat. It can be forgiven that mistake, given recent history. The fact that its values lie in a different direction makes it almost impossible to come to a working understanding.

But there's one universal clincher to this argument. Deterrence works when both sides want stasis. Deterrence would not have worked had the early Comintern continued its programme of world revolution, because that isn't stasis. Iran does not want stasis. It has made that quite clear in various ways, including just saying it. Its actions are quite out of keeping with a maintainance of the status quo; supporting the "insurgents" in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, and generally helping out every Jihadist movement around the world. If Iran gets nukes, one way or another they'll be used.

[Higgly]

All this is to say that with Iran, the dance fundamentally changes. It's not that Iran will be all about firing its nukes in every direction, but that it will be prone to miscalculation in the same way Hitler miscalculated over Poland. Europe has cringed repeatedly to all threats from the east, and a huge movement in the US is in favor of adopting cringing as a foreign policy as well, and Iran may well think that all it has to do is shove and the answer will be a retreat. It can be forgiven that mistake, given recent history. The fact that its values lie in a different direction makes it almost impossible to come to a working understanding.

But there's one universal clincher to this argument. Deterrence works when both sides want stasis. Deterrence would not have worked had the early Comintern continued its programme of world revolution, because that isn't stasis. Iran does not want stasis. It has made that quite clear in various ways, including just saying it. Its actions are quite out of keeping with a maintainance of the status quo; supporting the "insurgents" in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, and generally helping out every Jihadist movement around the world. If Iran gets nukes, one way or another they'll be used.

You missed the report of the IAEA which gave Iran a clean bill of health. But then that's not surprising. You really should stay aaway from the subject of international relations.

[Higgly]

You gotta learn to stay away from the topic of international relations.

Hey. What can I say. I clicked on the link and got a logon page. You want informed debate? Then inform the debaters.

But then how can I argue with a guy who knows more about Vietnam than Robert McNamara?

[M.Dancer]

You missed the report of the IAEA which gave Iran a clean bill of health. But then that's not surprising. You really should stay aaway from the subject of international relations.

You keep saying that but that's not what they are saying.

And we went through this already.....you already know they lied in the past, you already know they have concerns about radiation that haven't been answered and you already know they have their doubts about whether the Iranians are coming clean.

[Higgly]

Nukes should be off the table. If one sees nuclear weapons as a defensive weapon, then why even complain when countries like Iran, North Korea (another example is India/Pakistan) develope nuclear weapons for self defence and to act as a deterrent from being attacked?

You are absolutely right. Again, I reference the PBS broadcast interview with Robert McNamara. He was Kennedy's Secretary of Defense; his final analysis of the Cuban Missile crisis was that we only escaped Armageddon by the narrowest margin of luck. I can't remember the exact wording, but McNamara related how he asked (I think Andrei Gromyko) whether the Russians had ever come close to launching nukes. Gromyko reponded that Castro was insisting on a nuclear attack and that it was Kruschev who held back. But then one might understand Castro's position if one takes into consideration that at the time Robert Kennedy had gone into the business of repeated attacks on Cuba and his brother had gone into the hit-man business.

The problem with the nuclear weapons debate is that we have a whole coterie of military wonks who look at these things from strictly a tactical and strategical perspective. These people need to be viewed as raving lunatics and put into a corner where they have little wooden swords so they can poke each other's eyes out whenever they please.

Thank god politicians are civilians. They may not be perfect, but if you let a general run your country, sooner or later you are going to be finding yourself missing a few body parts.

[DogOnPorch]

The problem with the nuclear weapons debate is that we have a whole coterie of military wonks who look at these things from strictly a tactical and strategical perspective. These people need to be viewed as raving lunatics and put into a corner where they have little wooden swords so they can poke each other's eyes out whenever they please.

Are you saying that the people who control the nuclear weapons in a given country have no clue as to their effects? Really?

I highly doubt that...the very fact that one of these weapons haven't been employed since WW2 makes me think somebody is a tad leary about using them. The way I look at it, if they were going to be used willy-nilly as a tactical weapon we would have seen it during the period of 1946-1952-ish when the Soviets had no way of responding to a nuclear attack. None were used...as I'm sure you're aware. America...even though it could have...didn't nuke the Soviets while they had their hands tied behind their backs...so to speak.

---------------------------------------------------------

Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level.

---Enrico Fermi

[Higgly]

Are you saying that the people who control the nuclear weapons in a given country have no clue as to their effects?

Well here's the thing. The military doesn't control the weapons, we civilians do. The big red phone does not sit on the desk of a general, n'est-ce pas?

[DogOnPorch]

Well here's the thing. The military doesn't control the weapons, we civilians do. The big red phone does not sit on the desk of a general, n'est-ce pas?

Think again: President of The United States = Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces as per article 2 of the US Constitution.

---------------------------------------------------

Nyet, nyet Soviet...Soviet jewelry.

---BB Gabor

[Higgly]

Think again: President of The United States = Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces as per article 2 of the US Constitution.

That's right! The President is a civilian who is elected by civilians. Eisenhower didn't wear one. The President (whatever his titles may be) tells the military what to do. This is at the core of democracy.

[DogOnPorch]

You say to-may-to...I say to-mah-to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-...f#United_States

--------------------------------------

I came from a real tough neighborhood. I put my hand in some cement and felt another hand.

---Rodney Dangerfield

[Higgly]

You say to-may-to...I say to-mah-to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-...f#United_States

--------------------------------------

I came from a real tough neighborhood. I put my hand in some cement and felt another hand.

---Rodney Dangerfield

I didn't click your link. Can you say it in your own words? I'll click the link if I think you're full of crap. There's a good chance of that. What can I say. You're quoting Rodney Dangerfield. You don't get no respect...

[DogOnPorch]

I didn't click your link. Can you say it in your own words? I'll click the link if I think you're full of crap. There's a good chance of that. What can I say. You're quoting Rodney Dangerfield. You don't get no respect...

What a coincidence. I already don't respect you and I came to the conclusion that you're full of crap some days ago. A shame because I'm sure we have more in common than we'll admit. That being said, you're free to view the President as a civilian...I choose to view him...or possibly soon to be 'her'...as America's #1 soldier.

Meanwhile, I hope you get over whatever injury it is that prevents you from enjoying the internet to its fullest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants.

---Lewis Black

[Higgly]

... you're free to view the President as a civilian...I choose to view him...or possibly soon to be 'her'...as America's #1 soldier.

I agree with you there. The difference, of course, is that this is one soldier who we, the people get to appoint.

Too bad for you, eh?

[DogOnPorch]

Too bad for you, eh?

Eh? Like I actually care.

The difference, of course, is that this is one soldier who we, the people get to appoint.

Not American...I get to watch US elections from the cheap seats.

-----------------------------------------------------

Stanley, see this? This is this. This ain't something else. This is this. From now on, you're on your own.

---Mike: The Deer Hunter