Thanks Al- I have been involved in the medical response primarily to counterforce military targets with modeling of low yield weapons. A challenge that I have is that I find that many leaders have no concept of nuclear phenomenology. There is also a tendency to assume that any exchange, ,including a small tactical exchange, would lead to unrestrained escalation which is worrisome to me. As a physician, I do think use of any nuclear weapon is insane but based on my modeling I can see it potentially being useful militarily- especially if the adversary would be overwhelmed. Another question I have is that the modeling has demonstrated that a small tactical weapon, if you are prepared, likely has more downsides then upsides when it comes to use, but if you are unprepared you can be incapacitated by a potentially manageable situation -- however there is a resistance to preparing (is this normalization of the nuclear taboo or does preparation help strengthen the nuclear taboo) and considering the range of other solutions that humanity could offer outside of modernization or obtaining parity with tactical nuclear weapons.
These are all good points that I am not sure I have a good answer to. Twenty plus years of counterinsurgency operations has pretty much removed our military leaders' ability to think about nuclear weapons effects and the perceived utility and challenges of small tactical nuclear weapons use. Both politicians and military analysts can be faulted for thinking any nuclear use will instantly escalate - not sure that's true, depends on the context, and China and Russia do have different ways of examining this. We mirror image too much in this area.
The nuclear taboo is in my view more of a political (international relations) thing than a military thing, I think military folks get frustrated when they're told over and over again that they won't be allowed to launch nuclear counterforce attacks because it would break that taboo. I've heard Very Serious People explain that the United States can't lose its international leadership role by using nuclear weapons in nearly any situation short of a global exchange. Given that, I think preparation for a potential nuclear strike would help the nuclear taboo but only if one's adversary understands that we are preparing for such an event. That stability/instability paradox could lead to a greater chance of conventional warfare, which again, unclear if our military leaders understand this chain of events. Thanks for posting your views here.
Thanks for your blog and this article, it's always great to see anybody on Substack address this all important issue.
I'm only a modestly informed average citizen (tannytalk.com/s/nukes) and won't pretend to be able to keep up with your expert level discussion. My lack of detailed technical knowledge forces me to look at nukes through a different lens. What I see through a more man in the street common sense lens is that nothing any experts or activists have done in 75 years has removed the threat, and in fact, we seem to be traveling ever deeper in to danger.
On one hand we could claim the status quo is working, because we haven't had a nuclear war. On the other hand, we could say the status quo is a failure, as it seems inevitable that on the current course sooner or later we will have a nuclear war.
If you care to comment, I'd be interested to read your reflections on such matters. Thanks!
Hi Phil, thanks for the comment. I don't think you're missing anything here. While discussions on nuclear weapons can be maddeningly technically-focused and dry, or on the other hand, overly emotional and lacking any context, this topic area should be discussed more by the general public. My goal is to make these discussions more viable. When anyone discusses the nuclear deterrent, there is a large lack of data that inhibits rational conclusions, all we can do is make educated guesses as to the causes and results.
On the one hand, I will stress that it isn't the Cold War anymore, it was much worse in the early 1960s when the US and Soviet Union had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons operational and ready to go. Despite close calls, nothing happened, so success? I would recommend reading about the "nuclear taboo" for a deeper discussion here, but my two cents, when a nation succeeds in developing nuclear weapons, their political leaders get a hard dose of reality in realizing what happens if they launch. This usually sobers everyone up, although sure, this is argumentative as to what happens in crisis situations or possible escalation from a conventional war between nuclear powers.
I sincerely think that it is not inevitable that there will be a nuclear war, either limited or full-scale, between superpowers at least. We can't deal with the possibility of a second strike. There could be a one-sided nuclear strike on a non-nuclear country. There are supposed to be treaties against this possibility but even in the United States, there are policy makers and analysts who argue that this option be kept open to the president. I don't think it will ever happen but who knows, a poorly-informed, overly emotional national leader might be that stupid. This is why we need our military leaders to be better able to engage policy makers in terms they understand, which is not always a given.
And so there's the paradox, if no one thinks that nuclear weapons are going to be used in a major conflict, why keep them on? Why spend billions of dollars to modernize them? It goes back to what Colin Gray says, basically, because they exist, there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, therefore we need a counter-balance to keep the status quo. Keep up the interest in this area, again I sincerely think we are not going into deeper danger, there are a lot of detail-oriented analysts and discussions on this issue, even if they don't get into the general public. I remain optimistic that we will trudge along without future incidents, while remaining on guard that serious people in the government think about employing these weapons.
I totally agree this subject should be examined and discussed more by the general public. I've been trying to encourage that on Substack since I arrived here 2 years ago. It's slow going, but the arrival of public facing experts like yourself and Alex Wellerstein should help, and is very much welcomed.
I would also agree that my use of the word "inevitable" is an over reach, in that I'm not a psychic and can't see the future. I will admit I don't share your more optimistic view.
The best case scenario I can imagine is a nuclear weapons accident in the United States, as that would rock the status quo, but not lead to a war. Something like the Damascus Arkansas incident perhaps, but with a detonation. I'm convinced some kind of detonation will be necessary to escape the rut we're in.
Sobering up leaders doesn't pacify my concerns, given the potential for accidental launches, which I'm sure you know more about than I do.
Thanks for the encouragement, and I wish to encourage you to continue with your blog too. I don't want to abuse your time, but be assured I'll always be interested in discussing this topic. Please feel free to tag or PM me at any time.
Thanks Al- I have been involved in the medical response primarily to counterforce military targets with modeling of low yield weapons. A challenge that I have is that I find that many leaders have no concept of nuclear phenomenology. There is also a tendency to assume that any exchange, ,including a small tactical exchange, would lead to unrestrained escalation which is worrisome to me. As a physician, I do think use of any nuclear weapon is insane but based on my modeling I can see it potentially being useful militarily- especially if the adversary would be overwhelmed. Another question I have is that the modeling has demonstrated that a small tactical weapon, if you are prepared, likely has more downsides then upsides when it comes to use, but if you are unprepared you can be incapacitated by a potentially manageable situation -- however there is a resistance to preparing (is this normalization of the nuclear taboo or does preparation help strengthen the nuclear taboo) and considering the range of other solutions that humanity could offer outside of modernization or obtaining parity with tactical nuclear weapons.
These are all good points that I am not sure I have a good answer to. Twenty plus years of counterinsurgency operations has pretty much removed our military leaders' ability to think about nuclear weapons effects and the perceived utility and challenges of small tactical nuclear weapons use. Both politicians and military analysts can be faulted for thinking any nuclear use will instantly escalate - not sure that's true, depends on the context, and China and Russia do have different ways of examining this. We mirror image too much in this area.
The nuclear taboo is in my view more of a political (international relations) thing than a military thing, I think military folks get frustrated when they're told over and over again that they won't be allowed to launch nuclear counterforce attacks because it would break that taboo. I've heard Very Serious People explain that the United States can't lose its international leadership role by using nuclear weapons in nearly any situation short of a global exchange. Given that, I think preparation for a potential nuclear strike would help the nuclear taboo but only if one's adversary understands that we are preparing for such an event. That stability/instability paradox could lead to a greater chance of conventional warfare, which again, unclear if our military leaders understand this chain of events. Thanks for posting your views here.
Thanks for your blog and this article, it's always great to see anybody on Substack address this all important issue.
I'm only a modestly informed average citizen (tannytalk.com/s/nukes) and won't pretend to be able to keep up with your expert level discussion. My lack of detailed technical knowledge forces me to look at nukes through a different lens. What I see through a more man in the street common sense lens is that nothing any experts or activists have done in 75 years has removed the threat, and in fact, we seem to be traveling ever deeper in to danger.
On one hand we could claim the status quo is working, because we haven't had a nuclear war. On the other hand, we could say the status quo is a failure, as it seems inevitable that on the current course sooner or later we will have a nuclear war.
If you care to comment, I'd be interested to read your reflections on such matters. Thanks!
Hi Phil, thanks for the comment. I don't think you're missing anything here. While discussions on nuclear weapons can be maddeningly technically-focused and dry, or on the other hand, overly emotional and lacking any context, this topic area should be discussed more by the general public. My goal is to make these discussions more viable. When anyone discusses the nuclear deterrent, there is a large lack of data that inhibits rational conclusions, all we can do is make educated guesses as to the causes and results.
On the one hand, I will stress that it isn't the Cold War anymore, it was much worse in the early 1960s when the US and Soviet Union had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons operational and ready to go. Despite close calls, nothing happened, so success? I would recommend reading about the "nuclear taboo" for a deeper discussion here, but my two cents, when a nation succeeds in developing nuclear weapons, their political leaders get a hard dose of reality in realizing what happens if they launch. This usually sobers everyone up, although sure, this is argumentative as to what happens in crisis situations or possible escalation from a conventional war between nuclear powers.
I sincerely think that it is not inevitable that there will be a nuclear war, either limited or full-scale, between superpowers at least. We can't deal with the possibility of a second strike. There could be a one-sided nuclear strike on a non-nuclear country. There are supposed to be treaties against this possibility but even in the United States, there are policy makers and analysts who argue that this option be kept open to the president. I don't think it will ever happen but who knows, a poorly-informed, overly emotional national leader might be that stupid. This is why we need our military leaders to be better able to engage policy makers in terms they understand, which is not always a given.
And so there's the paradox, if no one thinks that nuclear weapons are going to be used in a major conflict, why keep them on? Why spend billions of dollars to modernize them? It goes back to what Colin Gray says, basically, because they exist, there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, therefore we need a counter-balance to keep the status quo. Keep up the interest in this area, again I sincerely think we are not going into deeper danger, there are a lot of detail-oriented analysts and discussions on this issue, even if they don't get into the general public. I remain optimistic that we will trudge along without future incidents, while remaining on guard that serious people in the government think about employing these weapons.
Al, this is most excellent. Thank you again.
I totally agree this subject should be examined and discussed more by the general public. I've been trying to encourage that on Substack since I arrived here 2 years ago. It's slow going, but the arrival of public facing experts like yourself and Alex Wellerstein should help, and is very much welcomed.
I would also agree that my use of the word "inevitable" is an over reach, in that I'm not a psychic and can't see the future. I will admit I don't share your more optimistic view.
The best case scenario I can imagine is a nuclear weapons accident in the United States, as that would rock the status quo, but not lead to a war. Something like the Damascus Arkansas incident perhaps, but with a detonation. I'm convinced some kind of detonation will be necessary to escape the rut we're in.
Sobering up leaders doesn't pacify my concerns, given the potential for accidental launches, which I'm sure you know more about than I do.
Thanks for the encouragement, and I wish to encourage you to continue with your blog too. I don't want to abuse your time, but be assured I'll always be interested in discussing this topic. Please feel free to tag or PM me at any time.
Again, welcome!