The threat of Russian nuclear warfare and nuclear weapons against the US, NATO and EU: a warning from Hamish de Bretton-Gordon
Russian President Vladimir Putin, for the second time this week, floated the possibility that Russia may formally change its military doctrine of not being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict, days after he warned of the “increasing” threat of nuclear war.
“They have it in their strategy, in the documents it is spelled out – a preventive blow. We don’t. We, on the other hand, have formulated a retaliatory strike in our strategy,” Putin said.
How should we be concerned? In this article, former British army officer and former commander of the UK and NATO Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Force, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, explains the differences between tactical and strategic weapons.
The warheads are fitted to ICBMs which can travel thousands of miles, meaning they are aimed at key sites in the US, UK, France and Russia.
With that view, the reason you would need a tactical nuclear weapon, low-yield, would be for battlefield use. I think that that opens a really dangerous precedent to start thinking about weapons that you’re going to use on the battlefield.
That said, tactical nuclear weapons could still create huge amounts of damage, and if fired at a nuclear power station – for example Zaporizhzhia in southern Ukraine – could create a chain reaction and contamination on a scale with a nuclear strike.
De Bretton-Gordon: This is difficult to tell for certain, but my assumption is that Russia’s strategic weapons and ICBMs are probably in good condition and always ready. It is only Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons which now give it parity with the US and NATO militarily, so I expect them to be well looked after.
But this is likely not the case for the tactical weapons. I believe that the vehicles used to mount the missiles and warheads are not in excellent condition, but that they have on good authority. Judging by the state of the rest of the Russian Army equipment on show in Ukraine, this is a fair assumption.
It is most likely that they would need to travel hundreds of miles in order to get to a location where they could attack the country. I do not think they would get that far from a mechanical perspective.
Because of the international sanctions and use of precision guide missiles by Russia, these weapons may rely on high tech components which are difficult to come by in Russia.
At the heart of this move is attacking civilians rather than opposition forces. These attacks include hospitals, schools and hazardous infrastructure, like nuclear power stations. If these are attacked, they can become improvised chemical or nuclear weapons.
The Russians hope that if the Ukrainian people give up, the military will quickly follow, which, in my opinion, is a highly flawed assumption – both are showing a lot more mettle than the Russians.
Meteorological conditions at the moment indicate that all this contamination would also head west across Europe. This could be seen as an attack on NATO and trigger Article 5 – where an attack on one ally is considered an attack on all allies – which would allow NATO to strike directly back at Russia.
Strategic nuclear weapons are not likely to be used, according to De Bretton-Gordon. This isn’t a war that anyone can win, and at the moment it doesn’t seem like a global nuclear war would happen.
I am sure the checks and balances are in place in the Kremlin, as they are at the White House and 10 Downing Street to make sure we are not plunged into global nuclear conflict on a whim.
I believe Putin’s tactical nuclear weapons are unusable. Even if their vehicles do work, the minute they turn their engines on to move they will be picked up by US and NATO intelligence.
De Bretton-Gordon: I believe the Russians developed their unconventional warfare tactics in Syria. (Russian forces entered Syria’s long civil war in 2015, bolstering ally President Bashar al-Assad’s regime). I do not believe Assad would still be in power had he not used chemical weapons.
The massive nerve agent attack on August 21, 2013 on Ghouta stopped the rebels overrunning Damascus. Multiple chlorine attacks ended the four-year siege of the city.
Putin has no morals or scruples. In Syria, Russia attacked hospitals and schools and it is the same thing in Ukraine. Unconventional warfare aims to break the will of civilians to resist, and Putin appears to be happy to use any means and weapons to achieve this.
Local commanders are able to use tactical nuclear weapons to protect their territory from a potential defeat because the Soviet doctrine allows it.
WOLF: What would be a tell that Russians were going to get ready to use one of these? Would they fortify themselves in a specific way or clear out the area?
According to Western military sources, Putin is getting involved in the battle and seems to be giving fairly low-level commanders their orders. This is remarkable as it suggests a broken control system, and a president who doesn’t trust his generals, after the recapture of large parts of the north-East from the Ukrainian military earlier this year.
Even in an attack on a power station one assumes Putin would be involved, as the West would likely construe it as an improvised nuclear weapon and act accordingly.
The consequences of the war using a nuclear weapon have been warned to Moscow, according to officials in the Biden administration.
It is striking that the President speaks candidly and invokes Armageddon at a fundraiser while his aides from the National Security Council to the State Department to the Pentagon say they don’t see movement on the threats.
WOLF: I believe there’s something irrational about threatening the use of nuclear weapons, even if you’re a rational actor. Biden said something, what did you make of it? Is it possible that Putin is acting rationally right now?
“As for the idea that Russia wouldn’t use such weapons first under any circumstances, then it means we wouldn’t be able to be the second to use them either — because the possibility to do so in case of an attack on our territory would be very limited,” he said Wednesday.
A Russian nuclear weapons test would not come out of the blue. Intelligence services would be able to see preparations ahead of time. The US and the UK have been sharing regular defense intelligence updates since before the invasion of Ukraine, to signal to Russia that its motives are transparent and to help allies coordinate. They could try and stop the upcoming test by using this same mechanism.
The Pentagon’s spokeswoman called this nuclear saber rattling reckless and irresponsible. Gen. Pat Ryder said earlier Thursday. We don’t have any information to cause us to change our posture at this point, and we don’t think President Putin has decided to use nuclear weapons.
The official defended Biden’s remarks because of the ongoing gravity of the matter.
His logic came right out of the Cuban Missile Crisis, to which Mr. Biden referred twice in his comments at a Democratic fund-raiser in New York, a good indication of what is on his mind. In that famous case — the closest the world came to a full nuclear exchange, 60 years ago this month — President John F. Kennedy struck a secret bargain with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, to remove American missiles from Turkey.
With that deal, which came to light only later, a disaster that could have killed tens of millions of Americans and untold numbers of Soviet citizens was averted.
What do we really know about nuclear warheads? A conversation with Putin about nuclear weapons and annexation in Ukraine (after the referendum)
The world rejected sham referendums Russia used to justify annexing four Ukrainian regions, and its military has been defeated in some parts of the area.
The Russian president suggested last month that Russia would use its nuclear weapons to protect its territory and now it seems that this sphere includes the parts of Ukraine.
I called Fuhrmann to ask if this new rhetoric has changed things, if Putin is rational and to get a better sense of what we know about the so-called tactical nuclear weapons Russia could theoretically use. Our conversation, edited for length, is below.
The members of the local electoral commission are at a polling station to count votes after the referendum on the joining of Russian controlled areas of Ukraine to Russia.
So someone can be rational and make decisions that we think are risky or problematic. But as long as they’re making those decisions on the basis of some means and calculation, factoring in costs and benefits, then I would still characterize them as a rational actor.
On Putin’s use of a nuclear weapon in armed conflict and the environmental effects on World War II: a counterexample
WOLF: There is a lot of skepticism that Putin will actually use a nuclear weapon. He would need to frame it as a defensive measure or as a response to a strike on the Russian homeland. There’s an idea of a cost/benefit analysis that might be worth it for him to use nuclear weapons.
A tactical nuclear weapon would have a lower yield and result in less casualties, less radioactivecontamination, than a larger strategic weapon, which is what we are talking about here.
Russian soldiers walk to Red Square during a rehearsal on May 7 for a military parade marking the 77th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.
fuHRMANN: He might be more likely to use a nuclear weapon on the battlefield than on a nuclear detonation in the middle of nowhere as a sign of displeasure with the US and the West. If there was going to be nuclear weapon use, that’s the scenario where I think it would be most likely based on the way things have gone so far.
WOLF: You just made a distinction between a tactical nuclear weapon and a strategic nuclear weapon. You are crossing a line if you use a nuclear weapon.
But it’s also true that there’s huge variation in terms of the kinds of nuclear weapons and the damage that they can inflict, and I think that that variation is important.
WOLF: What would be the lasting environmental effect of even a tactical nuclear weapon? How long before we could live in the place where one was used?
FuHRMANN: That would depend on a lot of factors. It would depend on the size of the warhead. It would depend on how far above the ground it was detonated.
Moscow nuclear weapons against the enemy: what can the US and Russia really do about them? — The case of tactical nuclear weapon deployments in the Cold War
There are a lot of arms control treaties concluded between the United States and Russia with regard to strategic nuclear weapons. We were able to learn about each country’s nuclear warheads as a result of those negotiations and treaties.
But there’s been no comparable bilateral arms control dealing with tactical nuclear weapons. They have a variety of tactical nuclear weapons with different capabilities. Tactical nuclear weapons are portable because of the command and control procedures that are in place. They’re designed for use on the battlefield and so they can be fired by a single soldier.
Weapons were being moved out of storage and to the frontlines. These are things that would be observable, in theory, by US satellites. And to my knowledge, we haven’t seen any of that happening yet.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/18/politics/russia-nuclear-weapons-threat-what-matters/index.html
Is Russia Nuclear Weapons Threshold What Matters now? (An interview with Robert Fuhmann on the occasion of the 11th Ukrainian Revolutionary War)
FUHRMANN: Strategic weapons were the big weapons that could destroy cities. I think it was natural to focus attention on those as being potentially the most destructive and therefore the biggest threat.
FuHRMANN: I think probably some people in Washington are already thinking that the United States should be more equipped with a greater number of smaller-yield tactical weapons.
There were some generally more hawkish commentators and policy analysts who, even before the Ukraine war, were pushing the United States to develop these lower-yield nuclear weapons. And ironically those arguments will gain weight if Russia continues to make nuclear threats.
FUHRMANN: My feeling is that nuclear weapons are useful as invasion insurance and as a deterrent against very major threats to national security. I think they’re not useful for blackmail or for other forms of coercive power.
TheWOLF: I remember after 9/11 that there was a lot of fear that one of the Russian tactical weapons could be used to make a dirty bomb. Has that threat receded, or are we just not paying attention to it right now?
The United States’ actions have a significant influence on that probability. To the extent that the United States were to escalate its military involvement in the war, do anything to strike targets in Russia itself, do anything to put troops on the ground in an overt way and actually enter the conflict, all of those things would significantly increase the risk of nuclear escalation.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/18/politics/russia-nuclear-weapons-threat-what-matters/index.html
The War on the Line: Preventing Retaliatory Nuclear Disarming Attacks on the Ukrainian Air Force – Russian-Israeli Relations
WOLF: There are more and more Republicans questioning military aid to Ukraine at the same time. What is the right way to strike that balance?
That doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen again in the future, but I think there is a line that countries have been willing to walk up to – and that line appears to be providing covert support quietly to actors engaged in conflict with other nuclear powers but not openly entering the fray.
The United States was covertly providing a lot of support to the mujahedeen fighting against the Soviets. The aid that has been given to Ukraine is not the same. The Soviet Union was, for its part, doing things to provide aid in the Korean War.
Jeremy Fleming, director of the UK’s GCHQ intelligence agency, was hopeful that he could see signs if they went down that path. He said there would be a good chance of detecting Russian preparations.
Putin spoke at a news conference. He described the preemptive nuclear strike as “applied to the control points, deprive the enemy of these control systems and so on,” implying that it could even prevent a retaliatory strike.
Some background: On Wednesday, Putin acknowledged that the conflict is “going to take a while,” as he also warned of the “increasing” threat of nuclear war.
“So if we’re talking about this disarming strike, then maybe think about adopting the best practices of our American partners and their ideas for ensuring their security. We’re just thinking about it. He said no one was shy when talking about it.
If an adversary thinks it is possible to use the theory of a preventive strike, then it still makes us think about what could be done to us.
On Monday, Russia unleashed a fresh wave of drone and missile attacks targeting energy infrastructure across Ukraine. Zelensky claimed that the strikes caused extensive power outages in several regions.
The U.S.-Russia Nuclear Arms Control Agreement After the Covid-19 Asymmetry Annihilation: a warning to the United States
The New START nuclear arms reduction treaty has been suspended by Russian President Vladimir Putin, threatening the agreement that regulates the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals.
The treaty puts limits on the number of deployed intercontinental-range nuclear weapons that both the US and Russia can have. The agreement was last extended in early 2021, meaning both sides will need to negotiate on another arms control agreement.
The US and Russia are allowed to inspect each other’s weapons sites, however they have been stopped since 2020 due to Covid-19.
While Russia is not withdrawing from the pact completely, it appears to be formalizing its current position. US officials have been annoyed with Russia for months over its lack of co-operation with the agreement.
Still, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said on Tuesday, after Mr. Putin spoke, that he would be willing to negotiate a new treaty that was “clearly in the security interests of our country” and, he added, “in the security interests of Russia.”
“We’ll be watching carefully to see what Russia actually does, we’ll of course make sure that in any event that we are posturing appropriately for the security of our own country and that of our allies,” said Blinken. “I think it matters that we continue to act responsibly in this area … it’s also something the rest of the world expect of us.”
A session of the Bilateral Consultative Commission on the treaty was slated to meet in Egypt in late November but was abruptly called off. The State Department said the decision was made by Russia, with the US blaming them.
The Director of the Nuclear Information Project questioned whether Russia will stop exchanging data with the US after Putin’s latest announcement.
The fate of nuclear powers depends on conflicts they don’t lose. It should be clear to everyone. Even to a Western politician who has retained at least some trace of intelligence.”
But he made clear that the United States would not be inspecting Russian nuclear sites, a central element of verifying compliance with the treaty. The leader sounded like he was done with arms control at a time of increased confrontation with the United States and NATO.
If that attitude holds, whoever is sitting in the Oval Office when the treaty expires in a bit more than 1,000 days may face a new world that will look, at first glance, similar to the one of a half-century ago, when arms races were in full swing and nations could field as many nuclear weapons as they wanted.
The War Between Russia and Ukraine: From the Warped To The Closed Türkish-Polyakov Theater of the Absurd
The Ukrainians were able to launch more attacks because he wouldn’t allow inspectors to look at those facilities. “This is a theater of the absurd,” he said. The West is involved in the attempts to strike at the bases.
There are many reasons. First, there is virtually no communication between the two countries. The strategic stability talks between Mr. Biden and Mr. Putin were stopped after the invasion of Ukraine.
The International Security Programme at Chatham House has a senior research fellow named Marion Messmer. Her focus is on arms control, nuclear weapons policy issues and Russia-NATO relations. She makes her own opinions in this commentary. Read more opinion on CNN.
Neither reason is comforting. It would be hard for anyone to know if the Russian nuclear weapons test was a success. The Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is underpinned by theCTBT which shows that states will reduce their nuclear arsenals over time.
Other nuclear armed states will likely follow if Russia restarts its tests. Since there is concern about the US falling behind Russia in the development of new nuclear capabilities, there would be concern about North Korea taking this as carte blanche for further tests. There could be a new arms racing dynamic.
In the days before Putin spoke, the news agency TASS reported that the nuclear test site in Novaya Zemlya is ready to resume.
The Cold War as a Cold War: How the world learns to be careful about its nuclear arsenal and what to do when you decide to do it
Firstly, as a signal of intent to ride roughshod over all nuclear agreements, demonstrating its capability and resolve – domestically and internationally – to use nuclear weapons.
The response should be to immediately increase sanctions until Russia reverses any test preparations. The European Union should act more quickly on sanctions than it has previously. Other states who have avoided taking a position might switch due to the risk of joining the pressure on Russia.
China and India are important players in this area. They have taken an ambiguous stance on Ukraine, not condemning Russia or abstaining on UN votes. However, they have criticized its nuclear threats.
A new nuclear arms race would look different from that of the Cold War. It would no longer be a race between the US and Russia, it would encompass China and have other regional nuclear dynamics implications.
There are several examples where the world was saved from a devastating nuclear war. Relying on good luck is not a great strategy, especially in such a complex and tense situation.
Adding an increasingly isolated Russia, with a president who makes decisions without the potentially tempering input of other senior officials, is a set up for disaster.