Better Nukes for a Safer Planet
By Dmitry Orlov
March
12, 2018 "Information
Clearing House"
-
A lot of
people seem to have lost the thread when it
comes to nuclear weapons. They think that
nuclear weapons are like other weapons, and are
designed to be used in war. But this is pure
mental inertia. According to all the evidence
available, nuclear weapons are anti-weapons,
designed to prevent weapons, nuclear or
otherwise, from being used. In essence, if used
correctly, nuclear weapons are war suppression
devices. Of course, if used incorrectly,
they pose a grave risk to all life on Earth.
There are other risks to all life on Earth as
well, such as runaway global warming from
unconstrained burning of hydrocarbons; perhaps
we need to invent a weapon or two to prevent
that as well.
Some people feel that the mere existence of
nuclear weapons guarantees that they will be
used as various nuclear-armed countries find
themselves financially, economically and
politically in extremis. As “proof” of
this, they trot out the dramaturgical principle
of Chekhov’s Gun. Anton Chekhov wrote: “Если вы
говорите в первой главе, что на стене висит
ружье, во второй или третьей главе оно должно
непременно выстрелить. А если не будет стрелять,
не должно и висеть.»” [“If you say in Act I that
there is a gun hanging on the wall, then it is a
must that in Act II or III it be fired. And if
it won’t be fired, it shouldn’t have been hung
there in the first place.”]
And if you point out that we are talking about
military strategy and geopolitics, not theater,
they then quote Shakespeare’s “All the world's a
stage, And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances…” and
believe that it is QED. Now, I happen to agree
wholeheartedly with Chekhov, when it comes to
dramaturgy, and I agree with the Bard as well,
provided we define “the world” as “the world of
theater,” from which the worlds of geopolitics
and nuclear physics are both dramatically
different.
Let me explain it in terms that a drama major
would understand. If there is a nuclear bomb
hanging on the wall in Act I, then, chances are,
it will still be hanging on that wall during the
final curtain call. In the meantime, no matter
how many other weapons are present on stage
during the play, you can be sure that none of
them would be used. Or maybe they will be, but
then the entire audience would be dead, in which
case you should definitely ask for your money
back because this was billed as a
family-friendly show.
Back in the real world, it is hard to argue that
nukes haven’t been useful as deterrents against
both conventional and nuclear war. When the
Americans dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, they only did this because they could
do so with complete impunity. Had Japan, or an
ally of Japan, possessed nuclear weapons at the
time, these attacks would not have taken place.
There is a considerable body of opinion that the
Americans didn’t nuke Japan in order to secure a
victory (the Japanese would have surrendered
regardless) but to send a message to Joseph
Stalin. Stalin got the message, and Soviet
scientists and engineers got cracking.
There was an uncomfortable period, before the
USSR successfully tested their first atomic
bomb, when the Americans were seriously planning
to destroy all major Soviet cities using a
nuclear strike, but they set these plans aside
because they calculated that they didn’t have
enough nukes at the time to keep the Red Army
from conquering all of Western Europe in
retaliation. But in August 29, 1949, when the
USSR tested its first atomic bomb, these plans
were set aside—not quite permanently, it would
later turn out—because even a singular nuclear
detonation as a result of a Soviet response to
an American first strike, wiping out, say, New
York or Washington, would have been too high a
price to pay for destroying Russia.
Since then—continuously except for a period
between 2002 and two days ago—the ability of
nuclear weapons to deter military aggression has
remained unquestioned. There were some
challenges along the way, but they were dealt
with. The Americans saw it fit to threaten the
USSR by placing nuclear missiles in Turkey; in
response, the USSR placed nuclear missiles in
Cuba. The Americans didn’t think that was fair,
and the result was the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Eventually the Americans were prevailed upon to
stand down in Turkey, and the Soviets stood down
in Cuba. Another threat to the deterrent power
of nuclear weapons was the development of
anti-ballistic weapons that could shoot down
nuclear-tipped missiles (just the ballistic
ones; more on that later). But this was widely
recognized to be a bad thing, and a major
breakthrough came in 1972, when the USA and the
USSR signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Over this entire period, the principle that kept
the peace was Mutual Assured Destruction:
neither side would provoke the other to the
point of launching a nuclear strike, because
such a move was guaranteed to be suicidal. The
two sides were reduced to fighting a series of
proxy wars in various countries around the
world, which were so much the worse for it, but
there was no danger of these proxy conflicts
erupting into a full-scale nuclear
conflagration.
In the meantime, everybody tried to oppose
nuclear proliferation, preventing more countries
from obtaining access to nuclear weapons
technology—with limited success. The cases where
these efforts failed testify to the effective
deterrent value of nuclear weapons. Saddam
Hussein of Iraq didn’t have any “weapons of mass
destruction” and ended up hung. Muammar Qaddafi
of Libya voluntarily gave up his nuclear
program, and ended up tortured to death.
|
Never Miss Another Story |
But
Pakistan managed to acquire nuclear weapons,
and as a result its relations with its
traditional nemesis India have become much
more polite and cooperative, to the point
that in June of 2017 both became full
members of Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, along with China, Russia and
other Eurasian nations. And then North Korea
has made some breakthroughs with regard to
nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, and as
a result of that the US has been reduced to
posturing and futile threats against it
while South Korea has expressed some
newfound respect for its northern neighbor
and is now seeking rapprochement.
In 2002 the prospect of continued nuclear
deterrence was set a major setback when the
US pulled out of the ABM treaty. Russia
protested this move, and promised an
asymmetrical response. American officials
ignored this protest, incorrectly thinking
that Russia was finished as a nuclear power.
Since then, the Americans spent prodigious
amounts of money—well into the trillions of
dollars—building a ballistic missile defense
system. Their goal was simple: make it
possible to launch a first strike on Russia,
destroying much of its nuclear arsenal; then
use the new American ABM systems to destroy
whatever Russia does manage to launch in
response. On February 2, 2018 the Americans
decided that they were ready, and issued a
Nuclear Posture Review in which they
explicitly reserved the right to use nuclear
weapons to prevent Russia from using
its nuclear deterrent.
And then, two days ago, all of that came to
a happy end when Vladimir Putin gave a
speech in which he unveiled several new
weapons systems that completely negate the
value of US missile defense shield—among
other things. That was the response the
Russians promised to deliver when the US
pulled out of the ABM treaty in 2002. Now,
16 years later, they are done. Russia has
rearmed with new weapons that have rendered
the ABM treaty entirely irrelevant.
The ABM treaty was about ballistic
missiles—once that are propelled by rockets
that boost the missile to close to escape
velocity. After that the missile follows a
ballistic trajectory—just like an artillery
shell or a bullet. That makes its path easy
to calculate and the missile easy to
intercept. The US missile defense systems
rely on the ability to see the missile on
radar, calculate its position, direction and
velocity, and to launch a missile in
response in such a way that the two
trajectories intersect. When they cross, the
interceptor missile is detonated, knocking
out the attacking missile.
None of the new Russian weapons follow
ballistic trajectories. The new Sarmat is an
ICBM minus the “B”—it maneuvers throughout
its flight path and can fly through the
atmosphere rather than popping up above it.
It has a short boost phase, making it
difficult to intercept after launch. It has
the range to fly arbitrary paths around the
planet—over the south pole, for instance—to
reach any point on Earth. And it carries
multiple maneuverable hypersonic
nuclear-armed reentry vehicles which no
existing or planned missile defense system
can intercept.
Among other new weapons unveiled two days
ago was a nuclear-powered cruise missile
which has virtually unlimited range and goes
faster than Mach 10, and a nuclear-powered
drone submarine which can descend to much
larger depths than any existing submarine
and moves faster than any existing vessel.
There was also a mobile laser cannon in the
show, of which very little is known, but
they are likely to come in handy when it
comes to frying military satellites. All of
these are based on physical principles that
have never been used before. All of these
have passed testing and are going into
production; one of them is already being
used on active combat duty in the Russian
armed forces.
The Russians are now duly proud of their
scientists, engineers and soldiers. Their
country is safe again; Americans have been
stopped in their tracks, their new Nuclear
Posture now looking like a severe case of
lordosis. This sort of pride is more
important than it would seem. Advanced
nuclear weapons systems are a bit like
secondary sexual characteristics of animals:
like the peacock’s tail or the deer’s
antlers or the lion’s mane, they are
indicative of the health and vigor of a
specimen that has plenty of spare energy to
expend on showy accessories.
In order to be able to field a hypersonic
nuclear-powered cruise missile with
unlimited range, a country has to have a
healthy scientific community, lots of
high-powered engineers, a highly trained
professional military and a competent
security establishment that can keep the
whole thing secret, along with an industrial
economy powerful and diverse enough to
supply all of the necessary materials,
processes and components with zero reliance
on imports. Now that the arms race is over,
this new confidence and competence can be
turned to civilian purposes.
So far, the Western reaction to Putin’s
speech has closely followed the illogic of
dreams which Sigmund Freud explained using
the following joke:
1. I never borrowed a kettle from you
2. I returned it to you unbroken
3. It was already broken when I borrowed it
from you.
A more common example is a child’s excuse
for not having done her homework: I lost it;
my dog ate it; I didn’t know it was
assigned.
In this case, Western commentators have
offered us the following:
1. There are no such weapons; Putin is
bluffing
2. These weapons exist but they don’t really
work
3. These weapons work and this is the
beginning of a new nuclear arms race
Taking these one at a time:
1. Putin is not known to bluff; he is known
for doing exactly what he says he will do.
He announced that Russia will deliver an
asymmetric response to the US pulling out of
the ABM treaty; and now it has.
2. These weapons are a continuation of
developments that already existed in the
USSR 30 years ago but had been mothballed
until 2002. What has changed since then was
the development of new materials, which make
it possible to build vehicles that fly at
above Mach 10, with their skin heating up to
2000ºC, and, of course, dramatic
improvements in microelectronics,
communications and artificial intelligence.
Putin’s statement that the new weapons
systems are going into production is an
order: they are going into production.
3. Most of Putin’s speech wasn’t about
military matters at all. It was about such
things as pay increases, roads, hospitals
and clinics, kindergartens, nurseries,
boosting retirements, providing housing to
young families, streamlining the regulation
of small businesses, etc. That is the focus
of the Russian government for the next six
years: dramatically improving the standard
of living of the population. The military
problem has already been resolved, the arms
race has been won, and Russia’s defense
budget is being reduced, not increased.
Another line of thought in the West was that
Putin unveiled these new weapons, which have
been in development for 16 years at least,
as part of his reelection campaign (the vote
is on March 18). This is absurd. Putin is
assured of victory because the vast majority
of Russians approve of his leadership. The
elections have been about jockeying for a
second place position between the Liberal
Democrats, led by the old war horse Vladimir
Zhirinovsky, and the Communists, who have
nominated a non-communist oligarch
businessman Pavel Grudinin, who has promptly
disqualified himself by failing to disclose
foreign bank accounts and other
improprieties and now appears to have gone
into hiding. Thus, the Communists, who were
previously slated for second place, have
burned themselves down and Zhirinovsky will
probably come in second. If Americans don’t
like Putin, then they definitely wouldn’t
like Zhirinovsky. Putin is practical and
ambivalent about “our Western partners,” as
he likes to call them. Zhirinovsky, on the
other hand, is rather revenge-minded, and
seems to want to inflict pain on them.
At the same time, there is now a committee,
composed of very serious-looking men and
women, who are charged with monitoring and
thwarting American meddling in Russian
politics. It seems unlikely that the CIA,
the US State Department and the usual
culprits will be able to get away with much
in Russia. The age of color revolutions is
over, and the regime change train has
sailed… all the way back to Washington,
where Trump stands a chance of getting
dethroned Ukrainian-style.
Another way to look at the Western reaction
to Russia’s new weapons is using Elizabeth
Kübler-Ross’s stages of grief. We already
saw denial (Putin is bluffing; weapons don't
work) and the start of anger (new arms
race). We should expect a bit more anger
before moving on to bargaining (you can have
the Ukraine if you stop building Sarmat).
Once the response comes back (“You broke the
Ukraine; you pay to get it fixed”) we move
on to depression (“The Russians just don’t
love us any more!”) and, finally,
acceptance. Once the stage of acceptance is
reached, here is what the Americans can
usefully do in response to Russia’s new
weapons systems.
First of all, Americans can scrap their ABM
systems because they are now useless.
Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu had
this to say about it: «То, что сегодня
создаётся в Польше и Румынии, создаётся на
Аляске и предполагается к созданию в Южной
Корее и Японии — этот "зонтик"
противоракетной обороны, получается, "дырявый".
И не знаю, зачем за такие деньги теперь этот
"зонтик" им приобретать.» [“What is being
built in Poland and Romania, and in Alaska,
and is planned in South Korea and Japan—this
missile defense ‘umbrella’—turns out to be
riddled with holes. I don’t know why they
should now buy this ‘umbrella’ for so much
money.”]
Secondly, Americans can scrap their aircraft
carrier fleet. All it’s useful now for now
is threatening defenseless nations, but
there are much cheaper ways to threaten
defenseless nations. If Americans are still
planning to use them to dominate sea lanes
and control world trade, then the existence
of hypersonic cruise missiles with unlimited
range and drone submarines that can lurk at
great ocean depths for years make the
world’s oceans off-limits for American
navy’s battle groups in the event of any
major (non-nuclear) escalation because now
Russia can destroy them from an arbitrary
distance without putting any of their assets
or personnel at risk.
Lastly, Americans can pull out of NATO,
which has now been shown to be completely
useless, dismantle their thousand military
bases around the world, and repatriate the
troops stationed there. It’s not as if, in
light of these new developments, American
security guarantees are going to be worth
much to anyone, and America’s “allies” will
be quick to realize that. As far as Russian
security guarantees, there is a lot on
offer: unlike the US, which is increasingly
seen as a rogue state—and an ineffectual and
blundering one at that—Russia has been
scrupulous in adhering to its international
agreements and international law. In
developing and deploying its new weapons
systems, Russia has not violated any
international agreements, treaties or laws.
And Russia has no aggressive plans towards
anyone except terrorists. As Putin put it
during his speech, «Мы ни на кого не
собираемся нападать и что-то отнимать. У нас
у самих всё есть.» [“We are not planning to
attack anyone or take over anywhere. We have
everything we need.”]
I hope that the US doesn’t plan to attack
anyone either, because, given its recent
history, this won’t work. Threatening the
whole planet and forcing it to use the US
dollar in international trade (and
destroying countries, such as Iraq and
Libya, when they refuse); running huge trade
deficits with virtually the entire world and
forcing reserve banks around the world to
buy up US government debt; leveraging that
debt to run up colossal budget deficits (now
around a trillion dollars a year); and
robbing the entire planet by printing money
and spending it on various corrupt
schemes—that, my friends, has been America’s
business plan since around the 1970s. And it
is unraveling before our eyes.
I have the audacity to hope that the
dismantling of the American Empire will
proceed as copacetically as the dismantling
of the Soviet Empire did. (This is not to
say that it won’t be humiliating or
impoverishing, or that it won’t be
accompanied by a huge increase in morbidity
and mortality.) One of my greatest fears
over the past decade was that Russia
wouldn’t take the US and NATO seriously
enough and just try to wait them out. After
all, what is there to really to fear from a
nation that has over a 100 trillion dollars
in unfunded entitlements, that’s full of
opioid addicts, with 100 million working-age
people permanently out of work, with
decrepit infrastructure and poisoned
national politics? And as far as NATO, there
is, of course, Germany, which is busy
rewriting “Deutschland, Deutschland, über
alles” to be gender-neutral. What are they
supposed to do next? March on Moscow under a
rainbow banner and hope that the Russians
die laughing? Oh, and there’s also NATO’s
largest Eurasian asset, Turkey, which is
currently busy slaughtering America’s
Kurdish assets in Northern Syria.
But simply waiting them out would have been
a gamble, because in its death throes the
American Empire could have lashed out in
unpredictable ways. I am glad that Russia
chose not to gamble with its national
security. Now that the US has been safely
checkmated using the new Russian weapons
systems, I feel that the world is in a much
better place. If you like peace, then it
seems like your best option is to also like
nukes—the best ones possible, ones against
which no deterrent exists, and wielded by
peaceful, law-abiding nations that have no
evil designs on the rest of the planet.
This article was originally published by "Club Orlov" -
The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Information Clearing House.
=====
Join the Discussion
It is not necessary for ICH readers to register before placing a comment. We ask that you treat others with respect. Take a moment to read the following - Comment Policy - What Or Who is Information Clearing House and Purpose and Intent of this website: It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH. Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
|
|
