A Step Towards Nuclear Doomsday

A Step Towards Nuclear Doomsday

US Puts Low-Yield Nukes on Submarines in Response to Made-up
Russian ‘Escalate to Deescalate’ Strategy

By Scott Ritter
Information Clearing House
February 14, 2020

The US has deployed “low-yield” nuclear missiles on submarines,
saying it’s to discourage nuclear conflict with Russia.

The move is based on a “Russian strategy” made up in Washington
and will only bring mass annihilation closer.

In a statement released earlier this week, US Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy John Rood announced that “the US Navy has
fielded the W76-2 low-yield submarine launched ballistic missile
(SLBM) warhead.”

This new operational capability, Rood declared, “demonstrates to
potential adversaries that there is no advantage to limited nuclear
employment because the United States can credibly and decisively
respond to any threat scenario.”

The threat underpinning justification for this new US nuclear
deterrent had its roots in testimony delivered to the House Armed
Services Committee in June 2015 by US Deputy Secretary of Defense
Robert Work, who declared that “Russian military doctrine includes
what some have called an ‘escalate to deescalate strategy’
– a strategy that purportedly seeks to deescalate a conventional
conflict through coercive threats, including limited nuclear use.”

However, any review of actual Russian nuclear doctrine
would have shown this to be a false premise.

Provision 27 of the 2014 edition of ‘Russian Military Doctrine’ states
that Russia “shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in
response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass
destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event
of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of
conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in
jeopardy. The decision to use nuclear weapons shall be taken by
the President of the Russian Federation.”

Russian Threat, Made In America

Despite this, the concept of ‘escalate to deescalate’ as official
Russian military doctrine had become ingrained in official
US nuclear doctrine by 2018, with the publication of the
US Defense Department’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).

Moscow, the 2018 NPR claimed, “threatens and exercises limited
nuclear first use, suggesting a mistaken expectation that coercive
nuclear threats or limited first use could paralyze the United States
and NATO and thereby end a conflict on terms favorable to Russia.
Some in the United States refer to this as Russia’s ‘escalate to
deescalate’ doctrine.”

In response to this “Made In America” Russian threat, the 2018 NPR
identified a requirement to modify a number of submarine-
launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) with low-yield nuclear warheads
to strengthen US nuclear deterrence by providing US military
commanders with a weapon that addresses “the conclusion that
potential adversaries, like Russia, believe that employment of low-
yield nuclear weapons will give them an advantage over the United
States and its allies and partners.”

As was the case with Robert Work’s 2015 congressional testimony,
the 2018 NPR did not provide the source for the existence of a
Russian ‘escalate to deescalate’ doctrine, except to note that it
originated in the US – not Russia.

Nonetheless, based upon the 2018 NPR, President Donald Trump
requested that the Defense Department acquire a new low-yield
nuclear warhead for the Trident SLBM, setting in motion a process
which culminated in the recent announcement that this new
warhead had reached operational capacity.

Voices Of Reason Fall On Deaf Ears

In response to President Trump’s request, a letter, signed by a
laundry list of notable American statesmen, politicians and military
officers, including former Secretary of State George Schultz, former
Secretary of Defense William Perry and the former Vice Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, General James Cartwright, was sent to the Senate
Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, stating that there was no need
for this new “low yield” warhead.

The letter furthermore noted that the premise of this warhead
— the so called ‘escalate to deescalate’ Russian doctrine — was
derived from a “false narrative” combining non-existent Russian
intent with an equally fictitious “deterrence gap” that could only
be filled by the new nuclear weapon.

This letter fell on deaf ears.

At a meeting of the Valdai Club in October 2018, Russian President
Vladimir Putin addressed the issue of Russian nuclear doctrine,
prompted by questions raised by the publication of the 2018 NPR.

“There is no provision for a pre-emptive strike in our nuclear
weapons doctrine,” Putin declared. “Our concept is based on
a reciprocal counter strike. There is no need to explain what
this is to those who understand, as for those who do not, I
would like to say it again: this means that we are prepared
and will use nuclear weapons only when we know for certain
that some potential aggressor is attacking Russia, our territory…
[o]nly when we know for certain — and this takes a few seconds
to understand — that Russia is being attacked we will deliver
a counter strike. This would be a reciprocal counter strike.
Why do I say ‘counter’? Because we will counter missiles flying
towards us by sending a missile in the direction of an aggressor.”

There’s No Such Thing As ‘Limited’ Nuke Use

In a 1982 article published in Foreign Affairs entitled ‘Nuclear
Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance’, four senior American statesmen
(McGeorge Bundy, George F. Kennan, Robert S. McNamara and
Gerard C. Smith) who had a hand in crafting US nuclear policy
declared that “No one has ever succeeded in advancing any
persuasive reason to believe that any use of nuclear weapons,
even on the smallest scale, could reliably be expected to remain
limited.”

This fact holds as true today as it did when the article was written.

Perhaps there is no better voice to emphasize this point than
Russian President Vladimir Putin, again addressing the 2018
Valdai Conference.

“Of course, [the decision to launch nuclear weapons in defense of
Russia] amounts to a global catastrophe, but I would like to repeat
that we cannot be the initiators of such a catastrophe because we
have no provision for a pre-emptive strike. Yes, it looks like we
are sitting on our hands and waiting until someone uses nuclear
weapons against us. Well, yes, this is what it is. But then any
aggressor should know that retaliation is inevitable, and they will
be annihilated.”

And we as the victims of an aggression, we as martyrs would go to
paradise while they will simply perish because they won’t even
have time to repent their sins.

The Trump administration would do well to ponder these words as
they embrace the false deterrence of the new “low yield” nuclear-
armed Trident SLBM.

The fact of the matter is it deters nothing, and only invites global
annihilation.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52982.htm