Posted on 09/18/2020 2:36:13 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Nuclear expert James Acton believes that we are entering into an era of what he calls “nuclear entanglement,” one that promises to be different from anything we’ve seen before. Its main characteristic: an increasingly blurry line between nuclear and conventional weapons.
“During the Cold War, the nuclear and non-nuclear domains were largely distinct,” said Acton in an interview for the podcast, Press The Button. “Most delivery systems were nuclear or they were conventional, but they couldn’t accommodate both types of weapons.” The same goes for the threats facing nuclear weapons themselves. The majority of these, he explained, “came from other nuclear weapons.”
Not that the divide was ever airtight, cautioned Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. There have always been some dual-use systems that could accommodate both nuclear and non-nuclear munitions. And certain conventional platforms could indeed threaten nuclear weapons, chief among them the American attack submarines that prowled the Arctic for their nuclear-armed Soviet counterparts. “But,” he warned, “the degree of entanglement we’re seeing today is growing dramatically.”
The evidence is easy to spot. China and Russia are deploying greater numbers of “ambiguous,” dual-use ground-launched ballistic missiles. At the same time, the United States’ pursuit of conventional hypersonic missiles of very high speed and accuracy might enable even these non-nuclear weapons to hold nuclear arsenals at risk.
Neither trend is good for crisis stability. In the case of warhead ambiguity, the lack of clear distinctions between nuclear and non-nuclear systems greatly complicates any attempt at escalation management. “Imagine that the U.S. and China are in a shooting match, and China deploys conventional DF-26 missiles with non-nuclear warheads,” Acton explained. “But imagine U.S. intelligence gets that wrong and thinks they are nuclear versions of the DF-26.”
“From a U.S. perspective, that represents a big escalation of the crisis: China has just deployed nuclear weapons. But that kind of escalation is inadvertent because China hasn’t, in fact, deployed nuclear weapons. We just misidentified it.”
“The other way around is a problem, too,” he continued. “Imagine that China does deploy nuclear-armed DF-26s, and we think they are conventional and try and hunt down and attack these missiles. If we’re successful, we’ve inadvertently destroyed nuclear weapons, which from a Chinese perspective is extremely escalatory.”
On the other side of the ledger, the eventual deployment of American hypersonic weapons—whose conventional payload might conceivably lower the bar for their use—is likely to exacerbate Chinese and Russian fears about a preemptive strike on their nuclear forces, creating a dangerous “use-it-or-lose-it” mentality. “Even if that concern is wrong,” said Acton, “that could be for Russia or China an incentive to use nuclear weapons first.”
Nor is the entanglement problem limited to just weapons. Command and control systems are increasingly vulnerable, even those orbiting high above the planet. As a case in point, Acton pointed to Washington’s fleet of early warning satellites. These provide notice of an incoming nuclear attack against the United States, he explained, but can also detect non-nuclear launches against regional targets, allowing time for U.S. forces to prepare more localized missile defenses.
“In a conflict, Russia might start attacking these early warning satellites so that Russian non-nuclear missiles can penetrate missile defenses in Europe,” said Acton. “But from our perspective, it looks like Russia is preparing for nuclear war.”
Mitigating the new risks of entanglement won’t be easy, but there are some steps the United States can take on its own. “The most fundamental thing that we need to do is factor escalation risks into our war planning and crisis management,” Acton said. “Somebody needs to say, ‘there are military advantages to doing this, but there are also big risks,’ so that the key decision makers in these processes can be informed.”
But there is only so much that the United States can do alone. To truly succeed, it needs buy-in from the other major players, too. “The U.S. can’t dictate how other countries perceive these risks,” said Acton. “Russia and China are clearly very worried about the survivability of their nuclear forces.”
A trilateral forum—or, better, two bilateral ones—between the three nuclear powers could jump start the conversation around concrete risk reduction. Agreements could be reached limiting anti-satellite weapons testing, for example, or prohibiting dual-use missiles in the intercontinental range—a tactic Acton preferred because it doesn’t change present policy.
“What I like about that idea is it’s not rolling back a capability that’s already existing, it’s preventing new problems from arising. And that’s an easier thing to do.”
I don’t see a nuclear war with either Biden or Kam Ho in the WH.
We wouldn’t engage, we’d just take all the hits if that happened. Might even happen that same way with Trump in charge, since over half the military brass is in with the deep state swamp.
Of course not. They would immediately capitulate. They hate America.
The war mongerHarris administration will start a war, just like all administrations before Donald Trump.
Christ! Not this Sh*t again!
We went through all of this in the 60’, 70’s, 80’s and on and on. Doomsday clocks would advance whenever a Republican/conservative was elected to any office anywhere in the world.
I just want to gag with this really stupid speculations
Basic Communist propaganda.
Don't fight, give up. We have already won. Better red than dead.
All the same message.
LOL!
This will nag you to your dying day. You live in the nuclear age.
No need to have a meltdown.
The problem is the psycho mentality going around that nuclear powers can safely have conventional wars. Our generals truly believe they can have conventional attacks on Russians and they’ll just accept it. The Chinese think they can maybe get away with shooting at US ships and we will just shrug and accept a defeat.
In the original cold war it was pretty much understood that direct open combat between nuclear armed superpowers would always go nuclear.
Lot’s of idiots out there.
>>”Imagine that China does deploy nuclear-armed DF-26s, and we think they are conventional and try and hunt down and attack these missiles. If we’re successful, we’ve inadvertently destroyed nuclear weapons, which from a Chinese perspective is extremely escalatory.”
So, China tries to nuke us but it’s “escalatory” if we try to defeat the missles.... Shades of Mad Maxine there...
IF we had a war with China, it would be fought with bags of money under the table, and when we lost the war, the press would not cover it and no one would notice.
Then when someone named Trump came along and upset the post-war applecart, their American puppets would be tasked with getting rid of him by any means necessary.
Define winning a nuclear war.
We’ve been lied to by anti-defense interests for generations about the effects of nuclear weapons attacks. It would be quite survivable and with good health for most. Iodine-131 decays out very quickly but is the most dangerous isotope. Cesium is much longer lasting but not dangerous unless ingested. If ingested (say, by fish or other animals), it decays out much more quickly. Rains would wash cesium down into low spots and into the ground fairly soon in most places (with enough rainfall).
The Massive Open-Air Burst ordnance, abbreviated as MOAB, and popularly known as “Mother of All Bombs” is a powerful anti-personnel weapon, which ban cause concussive damage which approaches that of a small tactical nuclear weapon, and no radioactive residue.
Surprisingly inexpensive to assemble ($16 million), it can be delivered by a cargo plane, and set to detonate at approximately 100 feet above ground level, the force of the burst has been described as a “daisy cutter”, leveling most structures within about a mile of the burst.
And it isn’t even the biggest baddest thing out there any more.
No, it’s actually a reality between nuclear powers. If you do a nuclear attack, even by surprise, even first, you are guaranteed a nasty response from what you don’t get. And even if say only one Russian sub survived and we got hit with 20 to 50 warheads... that would be an unparalleled disaster for our nation.
To everyone except Buck Turgidson.
The “do not play” message was also from us to them. There is pretty much no realistic scenario where you can wage a nuclear war and emerge anywhere near a condition close to how you started it.
Nuclear war would be far more likely with Democrats in office. They tend to put off needed conventional actions, which lack of action is sometimes likely to get a country into a nuclear exchange situation (boxed in, out of options).
High intensity conventional wars were caused exactly by the inhibitions of “progressive” presidents to adequate prepare and expand military forces in advance (see Wilson, Roosevelt).
I’d speculate there was a window in the 50s and maybe early 60s where we could have nuked the Ruskies and won. We had the delivery systems and a superiority in warheads.
Preventing delivery of theirs while ensuring the delivery of our own
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.