I just realized that I forgot to make something clear in my latest post about Russian and US nuclear capabilities: a lot of the current debate about a possible US nuclear attack on Russia is a case of comparing apples and oranges. Let me explain.
My posts dismissing the possibility of a US nuclear attack on Russia are based only on two things:
a) a certitude that any such attack would result in the complete obliteration of the USA.
b) the working hypothesis that the US is a "rational actor".
If you carefully read the writings of those who are warning about a UN nuclear attack on Russia, they fall into two very different categories:
Group A: they say that a nuclear war in unwinnable (Paul Craig Robers is one of them) but that the US leaders are deluding themselves.
Group B: they say that the US has the capability to strike Russia and not be obliterated in a retaliatory strike.
I do not disagree with Group A. I don't necessarily agree either. My purely subjective feeling is that the US "deep state" will not risk it all on such a dangerous move and that the top US military comment would not go along with such an insane plan even if ordered. But I am not a psychic, a psychologist, a psychiatrist or somebody with any kind of access to the US leadership. I don't know what they are thinking today. The closest I have ever been to the US elites was in the late 1980s early 1990s - a very long time ago. So I do not know for a fact that the US is still a "rational actor". Maybe they have all gone completely insane as a consequence of a massive overdose of imperial hubris. Could be.
It is Group B which I categorically disagree with. All I am saying is that there is no conceivable scenario under which the US could strike Russia without risking unacceptable retaliatory damage if only because the current Russian nuclear deterrent is much stronger than the US one and that this will remain true for the foreseeable future.
So let's not compare apples and oranges, rational scenarios and those based on the hypothesis that one side has gone completely insane. Force planning and psychiatry are different sciences :-)
Kind regards,
The Saker
Showing posts with label nuclear warfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear warfare. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Why the US-Russian nuclear balance is as solid as ever
Ok. Today I am going to address the nuclear threat canard one last time. After that, I will just ignore this topic which, frankly, is a waste of time. Here are two comments which were recently posted on the blog:
The state of disrepair of the Russian nuclear forces
This is an old canard which really had it's days of glory during the Eltsin years when, indeed, so much stuff in Russia was in an advanced state of disrepair that it sounded very plausible. The Air Force was in disrepair, the Navy was in disrepair, the Land Forces were in disrepair and, frankly, all of Russia was in a total disrepair. I even had Russian friends who were telling me that if Eltsin pressed on the button all the Russian ICBMs would basically explode in their silos (mind you, friends with PhDs in physics!). It was all nonsense. How do we know it?
Because during the 1990s and later Russia often fired missile which had reached the end of their life cycle, that was a part of the normal readiness test program. In one case a submerged Russian nuclear submarine even ripple-fired its full complement of missiles (I forgot the date, but it's on YouTube - I am sure somebody can post the link to that test). As far as I know, this is the only case in history of a "boomer" firing its full load of missiles in one volley (correct me if I am wrong). Every single time the missiles worked. As far as I know (again, correct me if I am wrong) the only failed launches were during the testing of the new "Bulava" SLBM which was a real pain to develop and which had to be redesigned several times. By the way, now the system works and, for all their efforts and pain, the Russians now have the newest and most advanced SLBM on the planet. So why did these systems work so well?
Two things: the extraordinary quality of the Soviet engineers and the very rigorous quality control system of the Soviet nuclear forces. I cannot go in detail here, but the fact is that the folks who worked on these systems were in a different league all together and even during the Eltins years they managed to keep the Russian nuclear weapons in working condition. The Russian deterrence system was also in total disarray - the early warning radars were gone to the newly independent Republics, the early warning satellites were reaching the end of their lives and no new ones were sent up, the Russian military secrets were exported to the USA by the ton - and yet even in these horrible circumstances the Russians never let their weapon of last resort (intercontinental nukes) go offline. Even at the peak of the "democratic horror" of Eltsin and his oligarchs, the US knew that Russia could - and would - strike back if attacked.
Ever since the condition of the Russian nuclear deterrence forces has dramatically improved as have the Russian second strike capabilities. The early warning system is finally back online, Russia has build new and truly formidable intercontinental systems designed to defeat any foreseeable ABM threat (I am thinking of the road-mobile RT-2UTTKh Topol-M and the submarine launched RMS-56 Bulava and R-29RMU2 Lainer). Furthermore, the Russian submarine fleet has been dramatically modernized including its attack submarines which can not only protect the big "boomers" but also attack US submarines and even the US mainland (with cruise missiles). The US Naval Institute has published a good article on this topic entitled "The Russian Submarine Fleet Reborn" which I highly recommend to those still stuck in the 1990s.
Now, I will readily admit that the Russian Air Force is still not what it should be. It's Tu-95 and Tu-160 are still adequate, but Russia does need a new bomber. In fact, they are working on a new bomber so far referred to as PAKDA (future aviation complex of long range aviation), but I am concerned that they picked the wrong philosophy. The choice was to go hypersonic or a subsonic "stealth" bomber similar to the B-2. Alas, it appears that they have decided for the second version which I think is a huge mistake. Still, the bottom line is that the Russian nuclear forces, attack weapons and early warning system, are on a very high level of readiness, their capabilities have sharply risen over the past years, and they will rapidly continue to do so in the future.
What is weapon X negates all of that?
This argument basically says that the US can (or even has) developed some fancy technological weapon system or technology which would make the entire Russian deterrence system obsolete. Sometimes this argument is combined with the "state of disrepair" argument for a bigger shock effect. And if that is not enough - then the last argument is "well, how do you know?!".
The reply is really easy. Strategic nuclear weapons are only as good as their tests shows. Yes, maybe the USA or Russia has some super-dooper mega killer weapon hidden somewhere in a vault, but unless it has been tested, real life tested, it is useless. Also, the testing of these missiles is a very public event, if only because Russia and the USA warn each other about them months ahead of time. They also then spy the crap out of each other because both sides are not stupid and they really, really, care about that. So really, there are very few secrets in this field or, better put, the many secrets which do exist are technical ones, but not of the kind which would affect the global balance.
The other thing which civilians truly struggle with is the phenomenally high degree of redundancy built into the system. Again, the Russians and Americans who work on these systems are truly cream of the crop, the smartest and best educated people in both countries and from the moment both sides had the nuclear weapon (1949) survivability became the single most important consideration because if a nuclear weapon is the ultimate weapon it is also the ultimate target, the one target your enemy is going to try to hit really, really hard.
You have probably heard that Russia and the USA can nuke the planet many times over. Well, there is some truth to that. There is an "overkill" capability on both sides and the reason for that is not a Dr Strangelove kind of insanity, but the very smart and deliberate realization that to be truly effective a nuclear deterrent needs to be strong enough to still deter the other side EVEN IF 90%+ OF IT IS DESTROYED. This is called "first strike stability". Here is how this works:
If I design my system with, say, 10 times over "overkill" capability and
If my opponent somehow destroys 90% of my forces
I will still have enough to inflict and unacceptable retaliation on him and
He will therefore have to renounce that option
Simple and very, very effective.
What this means today is this:
If the Russian nuclear forces are in an advance state of disrepair and
If the US builds up and effective ABM shield and
If the US hides a super-weapon in space and
If the US destroys 90% of all Russian nukes in a first strike and
If then the US also intercepts 50% of all the leftover Russian nukes
Then Russia will still have more than enough nukes to obliterate the US as a country
These are a lot of 'ifs' (which are all false!) that still result in an absolutely unacceptable 'then'. And I don't care if McCain or Hillary are in office - if they even suggest such a move they will be told in unequivocal terms by the US "deep state" something along the lines of "shut up, sit down and get back to your business". I also have met enough US force planners and officers (including one Chairman of the JCS) to make me confident that they would never allow such a crazy plan to proceed. Yes, there are a lot of crazy and arrogant US politicians, and yes, there are even some lunatics in the military, but, as I said, the folks actually in charge of nuclear deterrence are really the cream of the crop, especially those on the middle level (not top commanders, not the guy who turns the key - the operational commanders, typically with a colonel rank).
So unless we assume a case of collective and suicidal insanity all this talk about a US-Russian nuclear war is absolute baseless nonsense. Good stuff for movies, but absolute nonsense in real life.
Now, all of what I wrote is only true about the USA and Russia. In theory, the other nuclear powers could possibly disarmed in a first counter-force nuclear strike because the China, France, Pakistan or Israel do not have that apparently stupid but in reality crucial "overkill" capability. Nor are their weapons that survivable. Mind you, I still would emphatically advise against trying that because what if just one or two of them get through and hit their targets? The consequences would be disastrous. Would you play Russian roulette if your chances of success were, oh say, 4 in 5?
Exactly.
I really do not want to turn this blog into a nuclear deterrence theory blog. Not that I don't find the topic interesting - I love it! I had the immense privilege to study force planning with Bob Haffa (Col, USAF), one of the sharpest officers I ever met (I still recommend his short but extremely well written book "Rational Methods, Prudent Choices: Planning U.S. Forces"), and ever since I have loved this topic. But, frankly, I think that right now we all have more important fish to fry and I don't want to spend any more time debunking media myths about a US nuclear attack on Russia. So I will end with something which will probably not endear me to a lot of folks (what else is new?).
I also happen to think that most US officers, especially the real professional, are decent people who love their country and who even if they are objectively serving the AngloZionist Empire, hope that their service will also benefit their country. I cannot imagine that enough of them would agree to go along with a lunacy like starting a nuclear war with Russia, not if that means that their families, friends, hometowns and country will go up in radioactive flames. Call me naive if you want, but I don't see that happening. It is one thing to (reluctantly) go alone the stupid imperial wars in Iraq of Afghanistan, quite another to take the risk of seeing your loved ones turned into dust or slowly die in horrible conditions. Again, I know how evil the AngloZionist Empire is, but I cannot forget that the many US officers I met were honorable and fundamentally decent men (I am talking about the armed forces here, not the freaks in Langley).
Anyway, that is my last post on this topic. I hope that I have contributed to reassure at least some of those who were sincerely worried about a possible nuclear war. To those, like myself, who are compulsive pessimistic "worst-casers" I can "offer" this: there still is one thinkable scenario for a nuclear war - a conventional war which one sides begins to lose so badly that it feels compelled to use nukes as a last way to avoid a total defeat. So NOT a deliberate nuclear war, but a failed conventional war which slowly creeps into a nuclear one (first tactical, then strategic). We have plenty of credible models of escalation and no credible ones (that I am aware of) for de-escalation. That is the problem. Which is why I consider even a conventional war between the two superpowers as total folly to be avoided at all cost. But screw-ups and miscalculations do happen - history is full of them. That is what sometimes keeps me up at night. And I sure hope that the scum in the White House will not end up stumbling into a hot war with Russia. Lord have mercy!
Kind regards,
The Saker
"Security experts in the U.S. do not agree that Russia has a credible nuclear deterrent. The story is that the Russian nuclear force is in disrepair and that the U.S. can easily destroy most of what is left. They may be wrong--but that's what seems to be the thinking by at least some officials. "Both of these comments are typical of the kind of nonsense which have flooded in blogosphere in the recent times. The first one quotes "experts" who speak about the state of disrepair of the Russian nuclear forces. The second one hints at some secret capability which would make a first-strike possible. I will address both.
"How exactly do YOU know that the US military knows that a successful nuclear first strike against Russia is impossible? So far, Saker, you have basically merely claimed this without providing any serious evidence whatsoever."
The state of disrepair of the Russian nuclear forces
This is an old canard which really had it's days of glory during the Eltsin years when, indeed, so much stuff in Russia was in an advanced state of disrepair that it sounded very plausible. The Air Force was in disrepair, the Navy was in disrepair, the Land Forces were in disrepair and, frankly, all of Russia was in a total disrepair. I even had Russian friends who were telling me that if Eltsin pressed on the button all the Russian ICBMs would basically explode in their silos (mind you, friends with PhDs in physics!). It was all nonsense. How do we know it?
Because during the 1990s and later Russia often fired missile which had reached the end of their life cycle, that was a part of the normal readiness test program. In one case a submerged Russian nuclear submarine even ripple-fired its full complement of missiles (I forgot the date, but it's on YouTube - I am sure somebody can post the link to that test). As far as I know, this is the only case in history of a "boomer" firing its full load of missiles in one volley (correct me if I am wrong). Every single time the missiles worked. As far as I know (again, correct me if I am wrong) the only failed launches were during the testing of the new "Bulava" SLBM which was a real pain to develop and which had to be redesigned several times. By the way, now the system works and, for all their efforts and pain, the Russians now have the newest and most advanced SLBM on the planet. So why did these systems work so well?
Two things: the extraordinary quality of the Soviet engineers and the very rigorous quality control system of the Soviet nuclear forces. I cannot go in detail here, but the fact is that the folks who worked on these systems were in a different league all together and even during the Eltins years they managed to keep the Russian nuclear weapons in working condition. The Russian deterrence system was also in total disarray - the early warning radars were gone to the newly independent Republics, the early warning satellites were reaching the end of their lives and no new ones were sent up, the Russian military secrets were exported to the USA by the ton - and yet even in these horrible circumstances the Russians never let their weapon of last resort (intercontinental nukes) go offline. Even at the peak of the "democratic horror" of Eltsin and his oligarchs, the US knew that Russia could - and would - strike back if attacked.
Ever since the condition of the Russian nuclear deterrence forces has dramatically improved as have the Russian second strike capabilities. The early warning system is finally back online, Russia has build new and truly formidable intercontinental systems designed to defeat any foreseeable ABM threat (I am thinking of the road-mobile RT-2UTTKh Topol-M and the submarine launched RMS-56 Bulava and R-29RMU2 Lainer). Furthermore, the Russian submarine fleet has been dramatically modernized including its attack submarines which can not only protect the big "boomers" but also attack US submarines and even the US mainland (with cruise missiles). The US Naval Institute has published a good article on this topic entitled "The Russian Submarine Fleet Reborn" which I highly recommend to those still stuck in the 1990s.
Now, I will readily admit that the Russian Air Force is still not what it should be. It's Tu-95 and Tu-160 are still adequate, but Russia does need a new bomber. In fact, they are working on a new bomber so far referred to as PAKDA (future aviation complex of long range aviation), but I am concerned that they picked the wrong philosophy. The choice was to go hypersonic or a subsonic "stealth" bomber similar to the B-2. Alas, it appears that they have decided for the second version which I think is a huge mistake. Still, the bottom line is that the Russian nuclear forces, attack weapons and early warning system, are on a very high level of readiness, their capabilities have sharply risen over the past years, and they will rapidly continue to do so in the future.
What is weapon X negates all of that?
This argument basically says that the US can (or even has) developed some fancy technological weapon system or technology which would make the entire Russian deterrence system obsolete. Sometimes this argument is combined with the "state of disrepair" argument for a bigger shock effect. And if that is not enough - then the last argument is "well, how do you know?!".
The reply is really easy. Strategic nuclear weapons are only as good as their tests shows. Yes, maybe the USA or Russia has some super-dooper mega killer weapon hidden somewhere in a vault, but unless it has been tested, real life tested, it is useless. Also, the testing of these missiles is a very public event, if only because Russia and the USA warn each other about them months ahead of time. They also then spy the crap out of each other because both sides are not stupid and they really, really, care about that. So really, there are very few secrets in this field or, better put, the many secrets which do exist are technical ones, but not of the kind which would affect the global balance.
The other thing which civilians truly struggle with is the phenomenally high degree of redundancy built into the system. Again, the Russians and Americans who work on these systems are truly cream of the crop, the smartest and best educated people in both countries and from the moment both sides had the nuclear weapon (1949) survivability became the single most important consideration because if a nuclear weapon is the ultimate weapon it is also the ultimate target, the one target your enemy is going to try to hit really, really hard.
You have probably heard that Russia and the USA can nuke the planet many times over. Well, there is some truth to that. There is an "overkill" capability on both sides and the reason for that is not a Dr Strangelove kind of insanity, but the very smart and deliberate realization that to be truly effective a nuclear deterrent needs to be strong enough to still deter the other side EVEN IF 90%+ OF IT IS DESTROYED. This is called "first strike stability". Here is how this works:
If I design my system with, say, 10 times over "overkill" capability and
If my opponent somehow destroys 90% of my forces
I will still have enough to inflict and unacceptable retaliation on him and
He will therefore have to renounce that option
Simple and very, very effective.
What this means today is this:
If the Russian nuclear forces are in an advance state of disrepair and
If the US builds up and effective ABM shield and
If the US hides a super-weapon in space and
If the US destroys 90% of all Russian nukes in a first strike and
If then the US also intercepts 50% of all the leftover Russian nukes
Then Russia will still have more than enough nukes to obliterate the US as a country
These are a lot of 'ifs' (which are all false!) that still result in an absolutely unacceptable 'then'. And I don't care if McCain or Hillary are in office - if they even suggest such a move they will be told in unequivocal terms by the US "deep state" something along the lines of "shut up, sit down and get back to your business". I also have met enough US force planners and officers (including one Chairman of the JCS) to make me confident that they would never allow such a crazy plan to proceed. Yes, there are a lot of crazy and arrogant US politicians, and yes, there are even some lunatics in the military, but, as I said, the folks actually in charge of nuclear deterrence are really the cream of the crop, especially those on the middle level (not top commanders, not the guy who turns the key - the operational commanders, typically with a colonel rank).
So unless we assume a case of collective and suicidal insanity all this talk about a US-Russian nuclear war is absolute baseless nonsense. Good stuff for movies, but absolute nonsense in real life.
Now, all of what I wrote is only true about the USA and Russia. In theory, the other nuclear powers could possibly disarmed in a first counter-force nuclear strike because the China, France, Pakistan or Israel do not have that apparently stupid but in reality crucial "overkill" capability. Nor are their weapons that survivable. Mind you, I still would emphatically advise against trying that because what if just one or two of them get through and hit their targets? The consequences would be disastrous. Would you play Russian roulette if your chances of success were, oh say, 4 in 5?
Exactly.
I really do not want to turn this blog into a nuclear deterrence theory blog. Not that I don't find the topic interesting - I love it! I had the immense privilege to study force planning with Bob Haffa (Col, USAF), one of the sharpest officers I ever met (I still recommend his short but extremely well written book "Rational Methods, Prudent Choices: Planning U.S. Forces"), and ever since I have loved this topic. But, frankly, I think that right now we all have more important fish to fry and I don't want to spend any more time debunking media myths about a US nuclear attack on Russia. So I will end with something which will probably not endear me to a lot of folks (what else is new?).
I also happen to think that most US officers, especially the real professional, are decent people who love their country and who even if they are objectively serving the AngloZionist Empire, hope that their service will also benefit their country. I cannot imagine that enough of them would agree to go along with a lunacy like starting a nuclear war with Russia, not if that means that their families, friends, hometowns and country will go up in radioactive flames. Call me naive if you want, but I don't see that happening. It is one thing to (reluctantly) go alone the stupid imperial wars in Iraq of Afghanistan, quite another to take the risk of seeing your loved ones turned into dust or slowly die in horrible conditions. Again, I know how evil the AngloZionist Empire is, but I cannot forget that the many US officers I met were honorable and fundamentally decent men (I am talking about the armed forces here, not the freaks in Langley).
Anyway, that is my last post on this topic. I hope that I have contributed to reassure at least some of those who were sincerely worried about a possible nuclear war. To those, like myself, who are compulsive pessimistic "worst-casers" I can "offer" this: there still is one thinkable scenario for a nuclear war - a conventional war which one sides begins to lose so badly that it feels compelled to use nukes as a last way to avoid a total defeat. So NOT a deliberate nuclear war, but a failed conventional war which slowly creeps into a nuclear one (first tactical, then strategic). We have plenty of credible models of escalation and no credible ones (that I am aware of) for de-escalation. That is the problem. Which is why I consider even a conventional war between the two superpowers as total folly to be avoided at all cost. But screw-ups and miscalculations do happen - history is full of them. That is what sometimes keeps me up at night. And I sure hope that the scum in the White House will not end up stumbling into a hot war with Russia. Lord have mercy!
Kind regards,
The Saker
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Remembering the important lessons of the Cold War
If anything the past 24 hours have proved, once again, that the US and NATO are opposed to any form of negotiations, confidence-building measures or any other type of negotiations with the Donbass and with Russia. Even though Putin tried really hard to sound accommodating and available for a negotiated solution, the US/NATO policy is clearly to provoke and confront Russia and its allies in every imaginable way. The same goes, of course, for the junta freaks whose forces have acted with special brutality during repressive operations in the city of Mariupol. As for the AngloZionist Empire, it is organizing all sorts of military maneuvers in Poland, the Baltic states and elsewhere. Logically, many of you are coming to the conclusion that a war is becoming a very real possibility and I therefore want to repeat a few things yet again.
First, there is no military option for the AngloZionists in the Ukraine, at least not against Russia. This is primarily due to three fact things: geography, US overreach and politics. Geography, it is much easier for Russia to move a ground forces to the Ukraine than it is for the US/NATO, especially for heavy (mechanized, motor-rifle, armored, tank) units. Second, simply too many US forces are committed elsewhere for the US to have a major war in against Russia in eastern Europe. Third, for the time being the western public is being deceived by the corporate media's reports about the "Russian paper tiger", but as soon as the real fighting starts both Europeans and Americans will suddenly wonder if it is worth dying for the Ukraine. Because if a shooting war between the USA and Russia really begins, we will all be at risk (see below).
Remember how the very same media promised that the poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly commanded and poorly motivated Russian military could not crack the "tough nut" represented by the NATO-trained Georgian military?
Second, we have to remember that it is never possible to oppose to forces on paper and say that "A" is stronger than "B". Afghanistan and Iraq are perfect examples of the kind of misguided conclusions a self-deluding political leadership can reach when it begins to believe its own lies. So without committing the political "crime of crimes" and suggesting that the invincible US military is anything but invincible, let me suggest the following: if the Russian conventional forces were to be defeated you can be absolutely sure that Russia would have to engage its tactical nuclear capabilities at which point the situation would escalate into a well-known Cold War conundrum. The theory of deterrence suggests that you should reply at the same level, but not above, then your adversary's first move. So, a Russian tactical nuclear strike in, say, Poland or even the Ukraine would have to be met by a similar US strike. But where? Where is the Russian equivalent of Poland for the USA? Belarus? But that is much more like a Russian strike on Canada - really close to home. Kazakhstan? Ridiculous - too far. Obviously not Armenia. So where would the US retaliate? Against Russian forces in the Donbass, but that is right across the border. Maybe in Russia itself? But that would mean striking at the Russian territory proper. What will Russia do in this case - strike at Poland? Germany? The 'equivalent' response would be to strike at the US mainland, of course, but that would be inviting a full-scale US retaliation, which would inevitably be followed by a Russian one. And since neither side can disarm the other in a counter-force disarming strike, we are talking about a nuclear world war a la Dr Strangelove, with nuclear winter and all.
Some might find this kind of reasoning ridiculous, but anybody who has participated in the Cold War will tell you that the best minds in the USA and USSR were busy full time grappling with these issues. Can you guess what they concluded? That a nuclear won cannot be won. But that, in turn, means that no war opposing the USA to Russia can be won because any war of this kind will inevitably turn nuclear before the weaker sides surrenders. Let me put it to you in a somewhat silly but truthful way: the survival of the USA depends on Russia not losing a war. Yes, that's right. And the converse is also true: Russia's survival is contingent on the USA not being defeated either.
This is why Foreign Minister Lavrov has been repeating over and over again that no one side can achieve security at the expense of the other and that security has to be collective and even mutual. But was anybody listening to him across the Atlantic?
Of course, for the time being and for the foreseeable future, this will only be true for a war directly opposing Russian and US military forces. Proxy wars are okay, as are covert operations and wars against third parties. But for the time being, only Russia and the USA have the kind of full-spectrum nuclear capabilities to be able to completely destroy the other side "no matter what". Let me explain.
It has often been said that the Russian and US nuclear forces have to be on high alert and that to avoid being destroyed in a counter-force (counter military) first strike they would have to launch on warning i.e., to launch while the other side's missiles are incoming and before they hit their targets. The fact is that both countries practice what is called "launched under attack" which is launching while some enemy missiles have already hit. But the truth is that both the USA and Russia could afford what is called "riding out the attack" completely and still have enough strategic nuclear weapons to destroy all the key population centers of the other side. This is due to their highly redundant strategic nuclear forces. The fact is that even if, say, the USA managed to destroy every single Russian bomber and every single Russia nuclear silo, and every single Russian strategic nuclear missile carrying submarine, even those in port (who can launch right from there if needed), Russia would still have enough road-mobile ICBMs to wipe off the USA a a country. The exact same can be said of a Russian first strike on the USA which, even if unrealistically successful would still expose Russia to a massive retaliation by USN strategic nuclear missile carrying submarines. And in the real world no first strike is 100% successful. Even 95% successful is not enough if the remaining 5% can still be shot back at you.
Civilians often complain that Russia and the USA have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet many times over as it that was a sign of insanity. In reality, it is exactly the opposite: it is because both Russia and the USA have the peacetime ability to destroy the planet several times over that in wartime neither side can have any hopes of achieving a first strike successful enough to avoid a massive retaliation. Yes, in the world of nukes, more is better, at least from the point of view of what is called "first strike stability".
This what sets Russia and the USA really apart: no other nuclear power has a nuclear force whose first strike survivability is as high as Russia and the USA" for the foreseeable future all other nuclear-weapons possessing powers are susceptible to a disarming first strike.
Let me give one more example of how nuclear warfare is counter-intuitive in many ways. We often hear of alert levels (DEFCONs in the USA) and the assumption is that a lower level of defense alert is better. It is not. In fact, a higher alert level is better from the point of view of first strike stability. Here is why:
In complete peacetime (DEFCON 5), most bombers are sitting on the tarmac, most crews doing their training, most subs are moored in port and most critical personnel busy with normal daily tasks. This is exactly when these forces are the most vulnerable to a disarming first strike. At higher levels of alert, the crews will be recalled to their bases, at even higher levels they will be sitting in their planes with engines running and at the highest threat level the bombers will be airborne in prepared holding positions, submarines will be flushed out to sea, all personnel in wartime command posts and, in the USA, the President has his key aides either in the air in Air Force 1 or deep inside a bunker. In other words, a higher degree of alert means much less vulnerability to a first strike and that, in turns, means more time to negotiate, find out what is really going on, more time to avoid a war.
What I am trying to illustrate here is that both Russia and the USA have developed a very sophisticated system to make it impossible for the other side to "win" a war. That system is still there today, in fact Putin has just invited the other heads of state of the CSTO to be present during a large-scale test of the Russian strategic deterrence forces (not because of the Ukraine, this exercise was scheduled over a year ago).
In other words, this means that the US/NATO know that they cannot "win" a war against Russia, not a conventional one and not a nuclear one either. Those who claim otherwise have simply no idea what they are talking about.
Which leaves two possible explanations for the current behavior of the West, and neither of them is encouraging.
First, Obama, Merkel & Co. are lunatics, and they are hell-bent into starting WWIII. I frankly cannot imagine that this is true.
Second, Obama, Merkel & Co are playing a reckless game of chicken with Putin hoping that he is bluffing and that Russia will accept a neo-Nazi run Banderastan which would be hysterically russophobic, a member of NATO and generally become an AngloZionist puppet state like Poland or Latvia.
That, my friends, is not going to happen. This is why on March 1st of this year I wrote an article warning that Russia was ready for war. And it has nothing to do with Putin, Russian imperialism or the kind of nonsense the western corporate media is spewing and everything to do with the fact that the US wants to turn the Ukraine into an existential threat to Russia while keeping together by brute violence and terror a fictional country invented by the deranged minds of western Popes and Jesuits which has no existence in reality and which would implode in less than 24 hours if left by itself.
What makes me believe that we are in a crisis potentially much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis is that at that time both the US and the USSR fully understood how serious the situation was and that the world had to be brought back from the brink of nuclear war. Today, when I listen to idiots like Obama, Kerry, Psaki & Co. I am struck by how truly stupid and self-deluded these people are. Here they are playing not only with our existence, but even with theirs, and they still are acting as if Putin was some Somali war lord who needed to be frightened into submission. But if that tactic did not work with Somali warlords, why would they think that it will work with Putin?
I will want to force myself to believe that behind all these crazy and ignorant lunatics there are men in uniform who have been educated and trained during the Cold War and who still remember the many hours spent running all kinds of computer models which all came back with the same result over and over again: a victory is impossible and war was simply not an option.
It is also possible that the Empire wants to escalate the situation in the Ukraine enough to force a Russian intervention but not enough to have a shooting war. If so, that is a very risky strategy. I would even call it criminally reckless. It is one thing to engage in all sorts of macho sabre rattling with the DPRK, but quite another to try the same trick on a nuclear superpower. The scary fact is that the bloody Democrats already have such a record of utter recklessness. Do you remember when in 1995 Clinton sent in two US aircraft carriers into the Strait of Taiwan in a cowboy-like show of macho force? At that time the Chinese wisely decided against responding to a stupid action by a equally stupid reaction, but what if this time around Obama decides to show how tough he really is and what if Putin feels that he is cornered and cannot back down?
It is scary to think that the fact that Russian and Chinese leaders are acting in a responsible way actually entices the US to act even more irresponsibly and recklessly but this does seems to be the case, especially when a Democrat is in the White House.
When is the last time you remember a US President taking upon himself to make a constructive proposal to avoid military action or a way? I honestly cannot recall such an instance.
In conclusion I can only repeat what I said so many times: there is no military option for the US/NATO against Russia. As for whether the AngloZionist plutocracy of the 1% who rule over us has gone completely crazy - your guess is as good as mine.
The Saker
First, there is no military option for the AngloZionists in the Ukraine, at least not against Russia. This is primarily due to three fact things: geography, US overreach and politics. Geography, it is much easier for Russia to move a ground forces to the Ukraine than it is for the US/NATO, especially for heavy (mechanized, motor-rifle, armored, tank) units. Second, simply too many US forces are committed elsewhere for the US to have a major war in against Russia in eastern Europe. Third, for the time being the western public is being deceived by the corporate media's reports about the "Russian paper tiger", but as soon as the real fighting starts both Europeans and Americans will suddenly wonder if it is worth dying for the Ukraine. Because if a shooting war between the USA and Russia really begins, we will all be at risk (see below).
Remember how the very same media promised that the poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly commanded and poorly motivated Russian military could not crack the "tough nut" represented by the NATO-trained Georgian military?
Second, we have to remember that it is never possible to oppose to forces on paper and say that "A" is stronger than "B". Afghanistan and Iraq are perfect examples of the kind of misguided conclusions a self-deluding political leadership can reach when it begins to believe its own lies. So without committing the political "crime of crimes" and suggesting that the invincible US military is anything but invincible, let me suggest the following: if the Russian conventional forces were to be defeated you can be absolutely sure that Russia would have to engage its tactical nuclear capabilities at which point the situation would escalate into a well-known Cold War conundrum. The theory of deterrence suggests that you should reply at the same level, but not above, then your adversary's first move. So, a Russian tactical nuclear strike in, say, Poland or even the Ukraine would have to be met by a similar US strike. But where? Where is the Russian equivalent of Poland for the USA? Belarus? But that is much more like a Russian strike on Canada - really close to home. Kazakhstan? Ridiculous - too far. Obviously not Armenia. So where would the US retaliate? Against Russian forces in the Donbass, but that is right across the border. Maybe in Russia itself? But that would mean striking at the Russian territory proper. What will Russia do in this case - strike at Poland? Germany? The 'equivalent' response would be to strike at the US mainland, of course, but that would be inviting a full-scale US retaliation, which would inevitably be followed by a Russian one. And since neither side can disarm the other in a counter-force disarming strike, we are talking about a nuclear world war a la Dr Strangelove, with nuclear winter and all.
Some might find this kind of reasoning ridiculous, but anybody who has participated in the Cold War will tell you that the best minds in the USA and USSR were busy full time grappling with these issues. Can you guess what they concluded? That a nuclear won cannot be won. But that, in turn, means that no war opposing the USA to Russia can be won because any war of this kind will inevitably turn nuclear before the weaker sides surrenders. Let me put it to you in a somewhat silly but truthful way: the survival of the USA depends on Russia not losing a war. Yes, that's right. And the converse is also true: Russia's survival is contingent on the USA not being defeated either.
This is why Foreign Minister Lavrov has been repeating over and over again that no one side can achieve security at the expense of the other and that security has to be collective and even mutual. But was anybody listening to him across the Atlantic?
Of course, for the time being and for the foreseeable future, this will only be true for a war directly opposing Russian and US military forces. Proxy wars are okay, as are covert operations and wars against third parties. But for the time being, only Russia and the USA have the kind of full-spectrum nuclear capabilities to be able to completely destroy the other side "no matter what". Let me explain.
It has often been said that the Russian and US nuclear forces have to be on high alert and that to avoid being destroyed in a counter-force (counter military) first strike they would have to launch on warning i.e., to launch while the other side's missiles are incoming and before they hit their targets. The fact is that both countries practice what is called "launched under attack" which is launching while some enemy missiles have already hit. But the truth is that both the USA and Russia could afford what is called "riding out the attack" completely and still have enough strategic nuclear weapons to destroy all the key population centers of the other side. This is due to their highly redundant strategic nuclear forces. The fact is that even if, say, the USA managed to destroy every single Russian bomber and every single Russia nuclear silo, and every single Russian strategic nuclear missile carrying submarine, even those in port (who can launch right from there if needed), Russia would still have enough road-mobile ICBMs to wipe off the USA a a country. The exact same can be said of a Russian first strike on the USA which, even if unrealistically successful would still expose Russia to a massive retaliation by USN strategic nuclear missile carrying submarines. And in the real world no first strike is 100% successful. Even 95% successful is not enough if the remaining 5% can still be shot back at you.
Civilians often complain that Russia and the USA have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet many times over as it that was a sign of insanity. In reality, it is exactly the opposite: it is because both Russia and the USA have the peacetime ability to destroy the planet several times over that in wartime neither side can have any hopes of achieving a first strike successful enough to avoid a massive retaliation. Yes, in the world of nukes, more is better, at least from the point of view of what is called "first strike stability".
This what sets Russia and the USA really apart: no other nuclear power has a nuclear force whose first strike survivability is as high as Russia and the USA" for the foreseeable future all other nuclear-weapons possessing powers are susceptible to a disarming first strike.
Let me give one more example of how nuclear warfare is counter-intuitive in many ways. We often hear of alert levels (DEFCONs in the USA) and the assumption is that a lower level of defense alert is better. It is not. In fact, a higher alert level is better from the point of view of first strike stability. Here is why:
In complete peacetime (DEFCON 5), most bombers are sitting on the tarmac, most crews doing their training, most subs are moored in port and most critical personnel busy with normal daily tasks. This is exactly when these forces are the most vulnerable to a disarming first strike. At higher levels of alert, the crews will be recalled to their bases, at even higher levels they will be sitting in their planes with engines running and at the highest threat level the bombers will be airborne in prepared holding positions, submarines will be flushed out to sea, all personnel in wartime command posts and, in the USA, the President has his key aides either in the air in Air Force 1 or deep inside a bunker. In other words, a higher degree of alert means much less vulnerability to a first strike and that, in turns, means more time to negotiate, find out what is really going on, more time to avoid a war.
What I am trying to illustrate here is that both Russia and the USA have developed a very sophisticated system to make it impossible for the other side to "win" a war. That system is still there today, in fact Putin has just invited the other heads of state of the CSTO to be present during a large-scale test of the Russian strategic deterrence forces (not because of the Ukraine, this exercise was scheduled over a year ago).
In other words, this means that the US/NATO know that they cannot "win" a war against Russia, not a conventional one and not a nuclear one either. Those who claim otherwise have simply no idea what they are talking about.
Which leaves two possible explanations for the current behavior of the West, and neither of them is encouraging.
First, Obama, Merkel & Co. are lunatics, and they are hell-bent into starting WWIII. I frankly cannot imagine that this is true.
Second, Obama, Merkel & Co are playing a reckless game of chicken with Putin hoping that he is bluffing and that Russia will accept a neo-Nazi run Banderastan which would be hysterically russophobic, a member of NATO and generally become an AngloZionist puppet state like Poland or Latvia.
That, my friends, is not going to happen. This is why on March 1st of this year I wrote an article warning that Russia was ready for war. And it has nothing to do with Putin, Russian imperialism or the kind of nonsense the western corporate media is spewing and everything to do with the fact that the US wants to turn the Ukraine into an existential threat to Russia while keeping together by brute violence and terror a fictional country invented by the deranged minds of western Popes and Jesuits which has no existence in reality and which would implode in less than 24 hours if left by itself.
What makes me believe that we are in a crisis potentially much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis is that at that time both the US and the USSR fully understood how serious the situation was and that the world had to be brought back from the brink of nuclear war. Today, when I listen to idiots like Obama, Kerry, Psaki & Co. I am struck by how truly stupid and self-deluded these people are. Here they are playing not only with our existence, but even with theirs, and they still are acting as if Putin was some Somali war lord who needed to be frightened into submission. But if that tactic did not work with Somali warlords, why would they think that it will work with Putin?
I will want to force myself to believe that behind all these crazy and ignorant lunatics there are men in uniform who have been educated and trained during the Cold War and who still remember the many hours spent running all kinds of computer models which all came back with the same result over and over again: a victory is impossible and war was simply not an option.
It is also possible that the Empire wants to escalate the situation in the Ukraine enough to force a Russian intervention but not enough to have a shooting war. If so, that is a very risky strategy. I would even call it criminally reckless. It is one thing to engage in all sorts of macho sabre rattling with the DPRK, but quite another to try the same trick on a nuclear superpower. The scary fact is that the bloody Democrats already have such a record of utter recklessness. Do you remember when in 1995 Clinton sent in two US aircraft carriers into the Strait of Taiwan in a cowboy-like show of macho force? At that time the Chinese wisely decided against responding to a stupid action by a equally stupid reaction, but what if this time around Obama decides to show how tough he really is and what if Putin feels that he is cornered and cannot back down?
It is scary to think that the fact that Russian and Chinese leaders are acting in a responsible way actually entices the US to act even more irresponsibly and recklessly but this does seems to be the case, especially when a Democrat is in the White House.
When is the last time you remember a US President taking upon himself to make a constructive proposal to avoid military action or a way? I honestly cannot recall such an instance.
In conclusion I can only repeat what I said so many times: there is no military option for the US/NATO against Russia. As for whether the AngloZionist plutocracy of the 1% who rule over us has gone completely crazy - your guess is as good as mine.
The Saker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
