Not Bluffing on Nukes

Death on Earth (1)

The following is an extract from Scott Ritter’s article today on Consortium News: Scott Ritter. Does this require us to vote for Trump to save the world while he eviscerates the ordinary American?

“David J. Trachtenberg, the deputy undersecretary of defense for policy during the Trump administration, said in a speech at the Brookings Institution in 2019 that a key aspect to the U.S. nuclear posture was “keeping adversaries such as Russia and China guessing whether the U.S. would ever employ its nuclear weapons.”

But the U.S. takes the guesswork out of the equation. Theodore Postol points out, in a recent article in Responsible Statecraft, that a new fuse used on the W-76 nuclear warhead (not the low yield W-76-2, but rather the 100 kiloton version) has turned the 890 W-76 warheads loaded on the Trident missiles carried onboard the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines into weapons capable of destroying hardened Russian and Chinese missile silos with a single warhead.

This means that, firing in a reduced trajectory profile from a position close to the shores of either Russia or China, the United States possesses the ability to launch a nuclear first strike that has a good chance of knocking out the entire ground-based component of both the Chinese and Russian strategic nuclear deterrent.

As a result, Russia has been compelled to embrace a “launch on detect” nuclear posture where it would employ the totality of its silo-based arsenal the moment it detected any potential first strike by the United States.

Return, for a moment, to the scenario-driven employment of the W-76-2 low-yield nuclear weapon as part of the “escalate to de-escalate” strategy that underpins the entire reason for the W-76-2 weapon to exist in the first place.

When the United States launches the Trident missile carrying the low yield warhead, how are the Russians supposed to interpret this act?

The fact is, if the U.S. ever fires a W-76-2 warhead using a Trident missile, the Russians will assess this action as the initiation of a nuclear first strike and order the launching of its own nuclear arsenal in response.

All because the United States has embraced a policy of “first strike ambiguity” designed to keep the Russians and Chinese guessing about American nuclear intentions.

Change-of-command ceremony in November 2019 at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska for U.S. Strategic Command, which has responsibilities that include strategic deterrence and nuclear operations, including NC3 – command, control and communications. (DOD/Dominique A. Pineiro)

And, to put icing on this nuclear cake, Russia’s response appears to have been to change its nuclear posture to embrace a similar posture of nuclear pre-emption, meaning that rather than wait for the U.S. to actually launch a nuclear-armed missile or missiles against a Russian target, Russia will now seek to pre-empt such an attack by launching its own pre-emptive nuclear strike designed to eliminate the U.S. land-based nuclear deterrent force.

In a sane world, both sides would recognize the inherent dangers of such a forward-leaning posture, and take corrective action.

But we no longer live in a sane world.

Moreover, given the fact that the underlying principle guiding U.S. policies toward Russia is the misplaced notion that Russia is bluffing, any aggressive posturing we might engage in designed to promote and exploit the ambiguity derived from the first-strike potential inherent in existing U.S. nuclear posture will, more likely than not, only fuel Russian paranoia about a potential U.S. nuclear pre-emption, prompting Russia to pre-empt.

Russia isn’t bluffing”.

Russia, meanwhile, is increasing its military expenditure to 6.2% of GDP. The latest draft budget 2025-2027 sees military expenditures rising by almost a quarter. Analysis by The Bell, reporting safely from within the world’s biggest national security collosus, shows that revenue for the three years is expected to rise to over $434 billion), while the deficit is expected to be less than 1% (pretty much where it currently is, by the way: the US, with a one and a half $trillion dollar debt, should weep). One likely negative consequence will be higher inflation and an increase in interest rates from 19% to 20%.

Zelenskiy and Trump

Anatol Lieven in his latest column in Unherd (Lieven) concludes that Zelenskiy’s “Victory Plan” (Ukraine into NATO and lots and lots more Western money and arms for Ukraine until Russia is pushed out of the Donbass) hasn’t a chance, and Russia is winning the war.

Instead Lieven opines, Western officials (and many Ukrainian) in private believe that the war will end along the lines of the Istanbul agreement (sabotaged) of March 2022 (while pro-Russian commentators, I would add, believe that while Istanbul may be the starting point, the end result will be Istanbul PLUS, and the size of the PLUS is getting bigger with every passing day of continued NATO nonsense).

The West (ever pitifully obsessed by PR “how it looks” considerations - looks to WHOM, for God’s sake?) would claim a qualified victory that saves 80% of Ukraine and secures its European future and halt Europe’s slide into the German mire of expensive energy, de-industrialization and recession.

Part of the calculation has to do with Russian steerage of the BRICS through the Kazan summit in a few weeks, and the necessity for Russia to provide assurances to some of its BRICS partners who are not totally sold on the war (and still want to look pretty for Washington) that it is being conciliatory. But what happens if Kazan proves a disappointing mess, with the BRICS unable to show they can de-dollarize, perhaps even unable to offer workable alternatives to SWIFT and unable to commit, with conviction, to a new world order?

Death on Earth (2)

The Myth of Heavy Russian Casualties Dispelled

The myth of very heavy Russian casualties (deaths), by the way, is put to rest in the latest BBC/Mediazona which puts the figure at 70,000 for the SMO period as a whole. But the BBC estimates that their count covers only 45% to 65% of the actual death toll and that that the real number of Russian military deaths could range from 107,864 to 155,804. A further 21,000-23,500 fighters for Luhansk or Donetsk may also have died.

All expert (non-Ukrainian) assessments of Ukrainian deaths of which I am aware from over the past year range from 400,000 upwards towards a million. Ukraine, with a much smaller population, and a smaller army, is likely losing around two, three or more times the number of Russian losses.

The report finds that in 2022, the average Russian soldier killed was a 21-year-old contract serviceman in elite units like Special Forces, Airborne Forces or the Marines whereas those dying in the conflict today tend to be men in their 40s, 50s or even 60s, often lacking combat experience or specialized training. A steady rise in casualties among volunteers since October 2023 coincided with a renewed Russian offensive in the Ukrainian city of Avdiivka.

An article yesterday in the Financial Times reports significant problems among Ukrainian troops (FT on Ukraine), where there are growing concerns over manpower problems, the quality of new recruits and the speed at which they are injured or killed. Infantry are exhausted, morale is flagging, desertion is increasing. New conscripts lack basic combat skills, motivation and often flee under fire. 50 to 70 per cent of new infantry troops are killed or wounded within days of starting. Seasoned soldiers “are being killed off too quickly only to be replaced by mostly older men without experience and in worse physical shape. Average person in Ukraine’s military is 45. Trainers don’t have real battle experience and dont teach what newbies need to know. New troops rarely practised with live rounds because of ammunition shortages, he added. Some don’t even know how to hold their rifles.

Death on Earth (3)

The profound horror of Gaza:

Volunteer surgeons in Gaza describe ‘horrifying violence deliberately directed at civilians,’ children

https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/volunteer-surgeons-in-gaza-describe-horrifying-violence-deliberately-directed-at-civilians-children/

Hezbollah has confirmed the death in an Isrseli strike of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah. Jessica Corbett for Common Dreams reports that as of Saturday morning, at least 1,030 people in Lebanon are confirmed dead, and 6,352 people have been injured, though Lebanese Health Minister Firas Abiad highlighted that "there are still martyrs under the rubble, missing persons, and scattered remains."

Isrsael is positioning troops along its northern border, possibly with a view to a ground invasion, although the numbers do not seem compelling. It will arguably wait to see whether its air war will be sufficient to eliminate Hezbollah missiles on Israel before committing, with more troops and aided by US troops, to a ground invasion.