Observations of an Expat – the nuclear train

Remember decoupling? It was a common phrase during the Cold War (or should I say first Cold War?). The railway metaphor was used to describe Soviet efforts to exploit American isolationist tendencies to sever the defensive link between Europe and America, leaving Western Europe exposed to the Soviet nuclear arsenal.

The threat is back. It is back in Europe and has opened a new front in Asia. It is nuclear. It is political. It is economic and the current crop in Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang are  much more adept at the task their predecessors.

The current debate centres on the latest generation of intermediate range (INF) nuclear-tipped missiles in Russia and North Korea. These missiles have a range of anywhere from 500 to 1500 miles which means that they are not a direct threat to the American mainland. They do, however, cast a huge nuclear shadow over America’s allies in Europe and Asia.

Why was the decoupling threat  treated so seriously by both sides of the Atlantic back in the 1970s and 1980s? Because it was believed to be important that if the Soviets attacked Western Europe with nuclear weapons the United States would respond with equivalent  force, and that the threat of such a response would deter the Soviets . But in order to insure an American response,  it needed to accept that its interests were inextricably linked to the defence of Europe. If American isolationists successfully argued that a Soviet attack could be confined to Europe, than might also argue that the US should refrain a strategic counter attack in order to avoid a doomsday scenario on US soil.

When the Soviets started deploying their highly mobile and virtually invulnerable  SS-20 intermediate range missiles in 1978 it gave them a distinct military advantage. It also raised the possibility of a nuclear war confined to European soil, thus threatening the link across the Atlantic.

At the December 1979   NATO heads of government meeting it was decided to counter the SS-20  with American cruise and Pershing Two missiles based in Britain, Italy, Belgium, West Germany and the Netherlands.  The link was secured, but in the public mind the missile bases—and the countries that hosted them—had become targets for a Soviet nuclear attack. The result was US-Soviet negotiations which led to the 1987 INF Treaty which eliminated all existing  intermediate range missiles in the Soviet Union and Western Europe.

Enter Vladimir Putin. It is unclear if he suffers from a unique form of Russian paranoia; a post-imperial  desire to restore the Russian Empire, delusions of world domination or some combination of the above. What is clear is that his policies – and willingness to use military force—means that Moscow remains a threat to the rest of Europe, and that to achieve this aim he  is working hard at  driving a political and economic wedge between America and Europe. Support for Brexit is part of this strategy.

Nearly ten years ago, the Russians started developing a new generation of intermediate range weaponry. They deny that they breached the INF Treaty. Technically speaking they are correct. The 1987 Treaty  involved only the old American and Soviet arsenals. This failure to mention past, present and future intermediate range weapons has allowed new technology to take their place; in this case, the more powerful hypersonic  9M 729 missile.

The European members of NATO have responded to the renewed Russian threat by calling on the US to renegotiate the INF Treaty rather than a return to American systems on European soil. They want to avoid being a target. The Trump Administration has rejected this, has withdrawn from the INF Treaty and this week tested a new intermediate range missile which it wants in Europe.  President Trump also said that any new INF Treaty should include China, which he regards as a greater long-term threat than Russia. China has rejected any calls for restrictions on its nuclear arsenal, mainly because it fears that that any treaty would freeze them at their current level of 400 warheads compared to 6,500 Russian warheads and 6,185 American.

Then there are the North Koreans who have been testing systems capable of obliterating South Korea and Japan. President Trump says he is unconcerned because the North Korean missiles cannot reach American targets. Besides, he is irked at the cost of keeping 78,000 US troops in Japan and South Korea. Trump’s position on the latest North Korean tests has infuriated Seoul and Tokyo and is a classic case of an isolationist American accepting the nuclear decoupling of Washington from its Asian allies. It also raises the question: Today Asia, tomorrow Europe?

* Tom Arms is membership secretary for Tooting Lib Dems. He also broadcasts on foreign affairs for US Radio, regularly contributes to Lib Dem Voice, lectures and is working on a book on Anglo—American relations which is due to be published next year.

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

3 Comments

  • nigel hunter 23rd Aug '19 - 11:49am

    Isolationist Trump moves troops out of Korea and Japan North Korea raises the stakes to ‘get rid of’ the before mentioned. Yes Asia 1st Europe next. We already see Putin flexing his muscles with ‘new toys’ that explode and kill scientists. Equally flexing his muscles on saying @mind your own business’ to those who monitor the situation is a bad sign. Their has been no strong condemnation of him. Equally cos of the Tory Brexit and European turmoil he is getting away with it turmoil .

  • Perhaps we need to look beyond the propaganda from the US. There is another possible analysis. At the end of the war the USSR was trying to recover from the slaughter of millions of their people, the destruction of much of their infrastructure. The US were trying to recover from the killing of many of their young people, the profits made by corporate America by industry which had been providing the arms to fight a war.
    At the end of the war the USSR saw the threat of a nuclear power and no doubt noted the experiments in nuclear destruction in Japan.
    At the time the U.K. was struggling to recover. There was a government which gave priority to housing – the prefabs for example and the use of ex military bases by “squatters”. But in those days of “Butskellism” when the policies of the two parties in Britain seemed to be coming together there were other forces at work. While the majority favoured peace there was the building of the narrative of a Cold War. A lot of pretence about getting rid of the nuclear weapons and a peace dividend.
    The reality is that we now have a world were the US has troops in dozens of countries. Were we are happy here in the U.K. to interfere with and invade countries were it is in the interests of corporate U.K. to exploit.
    It is all very sad. We are in a position where the pathway to the destruction of our ecosystem is clear to all. Instead of working together to build a better future we are indulging in fantasies built on our experiences of the bullies in the school yard.

  • John Probert 27th Aug '19 - 10:50am

    Tom Arms: “[Putin] is working hard at driving a political and economic wedge between America and Europe. Support for Brexit is part of this strategy.”

    And that makes Boris J. Putin’s unwitting stooge.

    God help us.

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 AvatarPeter Watson 22nd Nov - 11:26pm
    The problem for Swinson is that while Johnson and Corbyn expect to be given a very tough time by the "other side", she was given...
  • User AvatarTim Hill 22nd Nov - 11:26pm
    David Raw - Why are you active on this site, when you clearly aren't a campaigning, loyal LD member/supporter ? I also thought Jo performed...
  • User AvatarJohn Marriott 22nd Nov - 10:56pm
    I liked the format of tonight’s Leaders’ Question Time. Sadly, I‘m afraid that Jo Swinson did not rise to the occasion, despite the spin that...
  • User AvatarPaul Holmes 22nd Nov - 10:52pm
    JohnB - Question Time audience ask politically motivated questions of Political Party Leaders during a General Election. Shock. Horror. Who would ever anticipate such a...
  • User AvatarJohn B 22nd Nov - 10:41pm
    David Raw: It was stuffed full of people who asked perfectly fair legitimate questions, and I’m afraid they didn’t get adequate answers….. so it doesn’t...
  • User AvatarPaul Holmes 22nd Nov - 10:13pm
    I thought Jo performed extremely well -albeit with a potentially weak hand in a hostile environment. She was extremely articulate, composed under pressure and presented...