What do We Know About Nuclear War -- Probably Much Less Than We Think We Do

There is much written about nuclear war from various perspectives including military, scientific, political, sociological, and ethical. I want to point out that all this writing and talking is theoretical. We have never had a nuclear war. Two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. These ‘nuclear weapon’ devices captured the attention and imagination of the world. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had an explosive yield of  18 thousand tons of TNT (18 KT)  and initial casualties estimated at 140,000 killed. The atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki had an explosive yield of 20 thousand tons of TNT (20 KT) and initial casualties estimated at 74,000 killed.

The Allied bomber fire-bombing of Hamburg Germany resulted in a disputed range of deaths from 43,000-153,000. The Allied bomber fire-bombing of Dresden Germany resulted in a range of deaths from 45,000-50,000. The US bomber fire-bombing of Tokyo resulted in a range of deaths from 100,00-130,000.

The death counts above do not include deaths which followed from radiation sickness. The yield and death numbers vary between sources, but the numbers presented above are representative of accepted values.

Two conclusions are obvious. Modern weapons make it possible to kill a lot of people in a single attack, be it with hundreds of planes or a single plane and one weapon in that attack. The more significant conclusion is that politicians stand ready to order the military to make an attack which will kill tens of thousands of people in an attack.

This brings us back to –  

What Do We Know About Nuclear War?

I argue we do not “know” anything about nuclear war. We know about nuclear weapons and the physics of how these weapons deliver a combination of blast, heat, and radiation to physical and human targets. There has never been a “nuclear war” in the sense of a massive strategic nuclear exchange between nuclear armed enemies.

We have studied the nuclear war idea extensively for over 70 years. Various ‘insights’ resulted in slogans like ‘the balance of terror’ or the formal concept of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). The latter was elevated to policy during the Cold War. Simply put, MAD is the idea that a full scale nuclear attack by one superpower on the other superpower would be responded to by a counterattack and both sides would be annihilated.

The analytic ‘speculation’ behind MAD is sound. The development of intercontinental missiles and sub launched missiles with high-yield warheads profoundly changed our world. A missile launched from Russia could impact a US target 25-29 minutes later. An SLBM (submarine launched ballistic missile) fired from a ballistic-missile sub hiding off the US coast could hit a US target in 4-5 minutes. An enemy missile with a very high-yield warhead (20-50 MT) in a high-altitude airburst could create an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) which would destroy virtually all systems in the US which depend on microelectronics – that is everything electronic.

INTERIM SUMMARY

The United States of America could be destroyed as a country and society in less than an hour from a full-scale nuclear attack by Russia.

Russia could be destroyed as a country and society in less than an hour from a full-scale nuclear attack by the US.

How does one execute a strategic nuclear attack?

A full-scale nuclear attack is an incredibility complex military operation. The US has a plan called the SIOP (Strategic Integrated Operations Plan). Phasing of a strategic nuclear attack has to consider the targeting priorities, weapons fratricide, and maximizing immediate effects.

The targeting priorities focus on eliminating enemy “counterforce” weapons. That is, destroying the weapons the enemy might use to counterattack you. Obviously there is a critical time window to take these enemy assets out before they can launch land-based, sub missiles, or bombers.

Fratricide concerns relate to the fact the powerful blast and radiation effects of nuclear weapon detonations could kill your own missiles before they hit enemy targets. Thus, the SIOP plans for geographic and time phasing of the missiles and bombs.

Maximizing immediate effects means, can you achieve surprise? What is the response time for the enemy to fire missiles once the enemy detects your attack? Where are the enemy ballistic missile subs? How do we avoid showing any preparedness to attack and thus alert the enemy? The Able Archer Exercise in the 1980s was misinterpreted by the Soviets as attack preparation and brought the US and USSR to the brink of nuclear war.

Now, a reality check in three areas.

Neither the US or Russia has a strategic defense against an ICBM and SLBM attack.

Neither the US or Russia has a civil defense program against an ICBM and SLBM attack.

The US declassified a closely-held classified document from 1963 which was the transcript of an “oral presentation” made to the President  by the National Security Council. The presentation discussed the threat to the US from a strategic nuclear war with Russia. The reality check is this document considered scenarios where the US would sustain casualties on the order of 63 million to 107 million dead and that does not include delayed radiation sickness deaths.

The 1963 assessment was based on smaller weapons inventories for both sides and smaller-yield weapons. The US populaton in 1963 for the casualty estimate was 195 million.

Given the increases in the number of weapons and missiles for both sides and the more powerful warheads, using our current population (2020) 331 million – an update on casualties for a 2022 strategic nuclear war would be over 107 million to 182 million dead and the infrastructure of the country is reduced to radioactive rubble. All this in less time than it takes to watch a movie.

We can revisit this topic as relating the Ukraine War and the Russia nuclear threats – and China – and Iran – and North Korea – based on reader interest.

Originally Published 08.04.2022. Re-published with Permission from www.GaryBowser.net.

The New “Axis Powers” – Russia, China, Iran, North Korea

 

A World of Many Moving Parts

World War II designated the opposing sides as the Axis Powers and Allied Powers. The term Axis Powers was coined before WWII when Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy signed an agreement in 1936, the Rome-Berlin Axis. Japan formally aligned with Germany and Italy in the 1940 Tripartite Pact. From that point on they were called the Axis Powers.

After 9/11 President George W. Bush used a similar term, Axis of Evil, to call out the international threat of terrorism. President Bush included Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in the Axis of Evil.

The Thought for this week is using the concept of “Axis” as certain nations having a convergence of national interests that threaten the US. Furthermore, the historic idea of an Axis shows how events evolve in a complicated World of Many Moving Parts. An intelligence analyst cannot look at just a single event such as the Ukraine War. The Ukraine War, the Iran nuclear deal, China’s hegemonic efforts militarizing islands in the southeast Pacific, China’s economic thrust in the massive Beltway and Road Initiative are examples how events have varying degrees of linkages. The analyst needs to connect the dots to provide strategic insights how the US may be entangled in these linkages.

We were allied with Stalin, the greatest mass-murderer in history, during WWII; then became enemies of the Soviet Union during the Cold War; then Russia became a “most favored trading partner” in 2012; Russia lost most favored status in 2022 as part of US sanctions and the oblique threats of nuclear war from Russia.

The US dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese WWII enemy who is now a stanch ally of the US.

The point is clear – the world is dynamic, messy, and it is incredibly difficult for intelligence analysts to give simplistic outlooks for geostrategic problems.

We see national interests around the globe in conflict as nations choose sides, avoid choosing sides, worry about possible famine in a world food shortage, economic problems are magnified by an energy crisis in a growing inflationary spiral.

Much of what we see and hear from the press as immediate “strategies” amount to no more than political pandering through platitudes and symbolic gestures. The propaganda war from both sides is symbolic while sending additional weapons to the Ukraine stokes fighting and exacerbates the uncertainties and the risks of escalation to a nuclear war. No one, except Putin, seems to have an End Game in mind. Putin has become a prisoner of his End Game which makes him more dangerous.

A fact from history is nations will embrace transitory alliances as they pursue immediate national interests. Russia and Iran are historic enemies. Russia and China are historic enemies who have frequently implemented alliances of convenience. Is another “Axis of convenience” emerging as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea find certain advantages in cooperating to oppose the US? The US is the only country that has the potential to thwart the global and regional ambitions of China, Russia, and Iran. Europe is weak militarily, vulnerable economically, and has disparate views on individual national security matters.

The Axis concept has one more interesting aspect, history suggests the ‘Axis’ is quite brittle as the members of a given ‘Axis’ still have national interests in conflict. Italy dropped out as an Axis Power during WWII and effectively joined the allies. Iraq is no longer considered a promoter of terrorism and a threat to the countries in the region. Iraq struggles to escape the hegemonic pressure from Iran.

Though a China, Russia, Iran, North Korea Axis would have the inherent vulnerabilities of conflicting national interests, these ‘Axis’ vulnerabilities would be set aside in the short-term to present a united front against the US.

I submit that an informal “China, Russia, Iran, North Korea Axis” exists now. The probability is very low this ‘informal axis’ will ever be codified as an international treaty or agreement such as the 1940 Tripartite Pact.  The China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea relationships are fluid and opportunistic as tied to ongoing events. At the foundation of the relationships is a mutual desire to see America displaced as the major economic and military power in the world. Beyond that, the national interests of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, at best, have common benefits, but more often diverge and, in many cases conflict. For example,

• Russia, Iran, and North Korea can find mechanisms to beat international sanctions.
• Common propaganda themes provide global cover on issues.
• Iran and North Korea have shared technical information for years which enables each country to move forward as a nuclear power. North Korea has provided information and participated in the Iranian program to develop nuclear warheads. Iran has provided technical support for the development of North Korean long-range missiles.
• Russia does not want Iran to become a nuclear power with a capability to launch an intercontinental nuclear strike. Despite this, Russia aids and abets Iran against the US in the current discussion regarding Iran developing nuclear weapons. Russia sells nuclear reactors to Iran and shares nuclear technology.
• Though China and Russia have concerns about the rationality of a nuclear armed North Korea, both countries have given timely economic support ensuring the political survival of the Kim family tyrannical reign.
• Though China has an economy ranked second in the world by GDP, the Chinese economy would implode if their export trade was effectively cutoff.
• As Russia appears to struggle in an attempt to rapidly subdue the Ukraine, the parallel weaknesses of a Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan become manifestly obvious.

First conclusion: the world continues as a dangerous place for America as our strategic choices are limited by realpolitik and weak leadership at the top of the US government.

Second conclusion: we could easily disrupt and damage the China, Russia, Iran, North Korea Axis by developing the US energy potential (oil, natural gas, coal) to become a one-country OPEC+.

Third conclusion: Strategically exploiting our national security imperative through becoming the energy-superpower of the world is not likely given the influence of the cult-like Green Movement in the US.

The previous Weekly Thoughts emphasized the risk of miscalculations which could lead to a nuclear war. The Ukraine War and the Iran nuclear agreement talks resonate as two events ripe for miscalculation. What is seldom mentioned is a coherent US geostrategic policy which deals with the reality of the China, Russia, Iran, North Korea Axis.

Originally Published 28.03.2022. Re-published with Permission from www.GaryBowser.net.

The Russian Civil War That Wasn’t

  

Yevgeny Prigozhin – A caterer who added a second business line as the leader of the Russian Wagner mercenary organization.

So many experts and so many opinions – most of the expert opinions pushing an agenda versus offering an objective analysis.

If you do not have time to read all of this comment, here are my ‘expert’ conclusions:

Putin is not undone by the ‘Prigozhin Rebellion”.
The war in the Ukraine will continue.
Prigozhin is toast.

And as the late great Paul Harvey used to say, “and now, the rest of the story”.

A little background goes a long way when faced with a plethora of conspiracy theories.

Prigozhin was a wheeler dealer as a business man using political connections to develop a lucrative catering business with the Russian Ministry of Defense. Prigozhin known background is less than inspirational: a convict sentenced for various crimes, no reported military service or military experience, and a murky mystery how he came to be the leader of the Wagner Group. It appears the Wagner Group was created to do some of ‘the dirty jobs’ which were politically problematic for the Russian government. The US had a similar go-to organization, Blackwater, for certain awkward missions. (I had a former Henley-Putman student who worked for Blackwater).

The early Wagner organization appeared to be staffed with former Russian servicemen, mostly from the elite unites: Spetsnaz, Special Forces, and paratroops. However, the demands for Wagner operations in Africa and the Ukraine quickly diluted this experienced troop base as Wagner turned to Russian prisons, with full support of the Putin government, to recruit large numbers of additional personnel for the Wagner Group. The Wagner Group was totally dependent on the Russian government for funding and logistic support.

The reports of Wagner battlefield successes raised the Wagner Group and Prigozhin to an almost mythical status in Russia. At the same time, international reports of Wagner Group atrocities were part of a competing ongoing propaganda campaign by the West.

The reality of the non-Civil War appears to be that Prigozhin believed the press releases and became a legend in his own mind. Prigozhin began to publicly attack senior Russian generals, the Ministry of Defense, and in that process, indirectly slur Vladimir Putin.

Long story short, the former caterer made a bad recipe when he tried to march on Moscow. In less than one day the rebellion was over: Wagner Group finished, Prigozhin dead man walking, and the Ukraine war goes on.

Read more on the Russian Situation.