Observations of an ex pat: Nuclear madness

MAD was the big acronym during the Cold War. For those who cannot remember, it stood for Mutually Assured Destruction.

The thinking behind the terrifying term was that the nuclear arsenals of the two superpowers—America and the Soviet Union—would be maintained at such a level that neither could risk striking first for fear that the other power would be left with enough weaponry to launch a retaliatory strike that would leave planet Earth an irradiated cinder block.

It worked. Earth is still green and blue

But the political landscape has changed and is changing. There are new players and new threats. This would seem to indicate the need for a new strategy. All the reports are that this new strategy will be unveiled in the Trump Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) to be published next month with the term “low-yield” nuclear weapons entering the defence lexicon.

So what is different? Well for a start Moscow and Washington are not the only two countries with nuclear weapons. Throughout most of the Cold War France and Britain were also armed but their arsenals—especially Britain’s—was closely tied to America’s. China joined the club in 1964 and the basic structure of the East V West stand-off was established.

There were also regional nuclear powers. Israel is incredibly tight-lipped about its capabilities, but most experts agree that it has had the bomb since 1966, and its arsenal currently stands at about 80 warheads.  The weapons, however, are clearly meant to be a deterrent against an overwhelming conventional attack from hostile Arab neighbours. Nowadays they are also concerned about a nuclear attack from Iran.

India detonated its first big bang in 1974 which confirmed New Delhi as South Asia’s sole super power until Pakistan arrived on the scene in 1998 with its nuclear test. India now has between 110 and 120 warheads and Pakistan 130. The MAD doctrine appears to be working reasonably well in the subcontinent.

The biggest change is North Korea. Rocket man Kim Jong-un has 15 warheads and, possibly, the means to deliver them to California.

And what about Iran? Will the deal to halt its weapons programme hold? What happens if it doesn’t? Will The Trump Administration supply nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia ?

Will the Trump Administration counter rocket man’s threats by supplying nuclear weapons to Japan and South Korea? Unthinkable? Not according to Donald Trump.

The big questions, however, still hang over the Russian and American arsenals. They have been reduced and restricted by a series of Cold War treaties—ABM, SALT I, Salt Two, INF and  START. The result is that America now holds 6,800 warheads and Russia 7,000.  Less than at the height of theCold War, but global destruction does not begin to describe their potential.

Over the past 18 months Russia has started moving away from the MAD doctrine and it is likely that it is breaching the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Concerned about NATO troops in the former Russian satellites of Eastern Europe, Putin has jettisoned the no first use policy which is the essential pillar of MAD. Quite simply, if both sides agree they will not strike the first blow then, ipso facto, neither side strikes. MAD is an added guarantee.

Unfortunately, Putin is now saying that he “may” use battlefield and intermediate range nuclear weapons if he believes that Russia’s vital interests are under threat

Putin’s position is worryingly vague. It has also lowered the threshold at which nuclear weapons can be used. This in turn has prompted US defence planners to push for a “low-yield” nuclear arsenal to counter the Russians, at least according to a number of leaked reports about the forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review.

But then low yield weapons could have uses other than countering Russia’s strategic changes.  Their deployment also raises the possibility of a low-yield nuclear attack on North Korea to stop rocket man before he goes any further while limiting the fallout.  Low yield weapons could also be used against Iran and could it be argued that supplying such weapons to Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea  is politically more palatable than sending them big bang high yield nuclear bombs.

If the Trump Administration is dispatching low-yield nuclear weapons to its allies does this change the policies of other nuclear weapobns states such as India, Pakistan and Israel? Such weapons would be cheaper and easier to develop maintain, deploy and deliver.

The possibility of a low-level, low-yield and—presumably—survivable nuclear exchange then becomes much more likely.  But how do you keep it low-level? What happens when a high-yield nuclear power is facing defeat in a low-yield war?  It all sounds a bit MAD.

* Tom Arms is a Wandsworth Lib Dem and produces and presents the podcast www.lookaheadnews.com

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

5 Comments

  • Malcolm Todd 19th Jan '18 - 9:48am

    Very worrying. I was hoping to get to the good news at the end!
    One point though: “the no first use policy which is the essential pillar of MAD” – NATO explicitly rejected a no first use policy during the Cold War (it was one of the key demands of the left in the 80s that that should change). They feared that the Warsaw Pact had superior conventional forces in Europe and would overrun NATO in the event of a non-nuclear war, so retained the option to use nuclear weapons in that event. MAD wasn’t the only aspect of nuclear deterrence: nuclear weapons (including “battlefield”, i.e. low-yield weapons: they haven’t just been invented!) were also explicitly intended to deter any military attack. And arguably, they worked.
    I’m not saying it wasn’t mad…

  • John Marriott 19th Jan '18 - 10:01am

    Wasn’t the neutron bomb supposed to destroy people and not property? Nasty however you look at it. Whatever happened to that weapon?

    Tom Arms (interesting surname?) paints a frightening picture and he is perfectly correct. However, the real thing for us to worry about is a jihadist with a small nuclear device in his (or her) rucksack.

    Mad as it is, M.A.D. may still work in most cases. Could the apparent rapprochement between North and South Korea have anything to do with the fact that the present occupant of the White House appears to be as unpredictable (and unstable) as ‘Little Rocketman’? Both appear to be interested in putting their countries first rather than in
    conquering the world, although spreading control to the end of the Korean Peninsula may still be on the mind of the latter. I don’t think Putin is wedded to the kind of doctrine his Soviet predecessors were. What he appears to want is respect. Give him that and he might well fall into line.

    No, the real danger lies with those for whom death and life in paradise is the ultimate reward and who are quite prepared to cause unbelievable suffering in order to pursue their cause.

  • Steve Trevethan 19th Jan '18 - 5:29pm

    Might the risk of the use of nuclear weapons be lessened if the rulers of the USA stopped their efforts to dominate the world and accepted a multi-polar world?
    https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-foreign-policy-hegemony-or-stability-not-both/5582758
    Which is the only nation to have attacked another with a nuclear weapon?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJohn Marriott 22nd Feb - 9:16pm
    How true, Jonathan and Judy. The words of the late Dean Acheson come to mind as well.
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 22nd Feb - 8:58pm
    David, thank you for that! Our economists have had a field day, or rather several days, of discussing economic policies over several different threads, and...
  • User AvatarJudy Abel 22nd Feb - 8:12pm
    I spoke to someone yesterday who commented, rather chillingly, that Brexit is 'good' for the UK as it is finally exposing us for who we...
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 22nd Feb - 8:08pm
    I'm sure this is all very worthy and erudite, but, in the flight away from Layla's original comment about tuition fees, this thread has become...
  • User AvatarJonathan Reeve 22nd Feb - 7:17pm
    England has chosen an unwise Cold War with the EU when in a weak position, no longer financed by North Sea Oil: that is my...
  • User AvatarMichael BG 22nd Feb - 6:50pm
    According to the OBR £4 billion was cut from the 2010-11 deficit, so to discover what a Liberal Democrat government would have spent we can...