The world is full of experts on nuclear weapons and the political decision making process to deploy them. Their internet bio says so.
Dude doesn't understand mutual assured destruction - MAD. Escalation to "dominate" is impossible.
Once you get to a certain level of arms, more bombs don't help. You are just making rubble bounce. Both the US and Russia are perfectly capable of rendering each other smoking ruins and you don't need any more than that. Even China has that ability.
Fascinating piece, Ryan. I admire how you can pull this information causally out of your butt without raising a sweat and make it all accessible in the context of common sense, based on your experience and access to information. It is true that the mention of nuclear war is an emotional hot button to most of us, so this kind of explanation is really valuable. I genuinely hope you really know what you are talking about. Thanks for doing this.
Having grown up in Southern California, I can tell you that there is definitely is a military industrial complex, employing, millions of people, making weapons for money, yes, they don’t make as much money as Silicon Valley, but they do make billions of dollars, and retired military guys use the revolving door to enter those industries after they retire. Perhaps we’re just arguing semantics? But as far as I can tell, there are people who run this country from behind closed doors, and Joe Biden is just their puppet . Remember the Wizard of Oz? Don’t look behind the curtain.
Where I think Colby may have been going is that on the tactical side most Russian missiles are dual-capable, including all their latest. We rely mostly on gravity bombs as our tactical nuclear arsenal, and stealth is our delivery advantage. Each Ohio-class SSBN also carries one or two Tridents with a low-yield (5kt) W76-2 warhead for tactical response. But they still face the problem of do you risk a launch being misconstrued as a strategic launch, and potentially trigger a strategic Launch-on-Warning response, to use them? Same reason we decided not to put conventional warheads on Tridents to meet the Prompt Global Strike requirement. We can also dial the yield on the ALCM's W80 to 5kt for use as a tactical weapon, though each tactical use diminishes our strategic warhead and cruise missile arsenal.
When Russia launches an Iskander, Khinzal, P-800, Kalibr, etc. somewhere in Europe you have no idea if the warhead is conventional or nuclear. You do know it doesn't represent a strategic threat, at least to the United States.
Once a decision is made to introduce tactical nuclear weapons to the battlefield Russia appears to have many more options for employing them than we, the U.K., and France. The U.K. doesn't even have a tactical response option. And you could conclude that besides the tactical delivery option diversity, Russia's dual-capable arsenal is indicative of the widespread integration of the use of tactical nukes in their doctrine. We don't APPEAR to have that kind of integration into our doctrine, instead it seems to be a wart on the side. Our capability exists to deter Russia, while Russia's capability exists to be used.
That said, you nailed the overall dynamics. I would fully expect Russia to use its tactical nukes to stop an invasion of its pre-2014 borders. I could see them seriously consider using them to stop a breakthrough into Crimea. But otherwise, the utility doesn't rise above the risk of both the NATO response (conventional or nuclear) or the political fallout from China, India, and Russia's few other friends.
The thing with using a nuke on a carrier group, the enemy who does that needs to appreciate how valuable an asset that is to the U.S. It's not like parading an Abrams in Moscow for the Victory Day Parade. Carriers are essentially mobile islands that are considered part of the US.
When Pearl Harbor was bombed, we lost (roughly) 2K people, a half dozen old battleships and a couple hundred planes. We then entered a global conflict that ended with our using nukes on the nation that attacked us. It's where the whole "don't touch our boats" meme got rolling.
When 9/11 happened, we lost 3K people when the buildings collapsed. We then entered a global war on terror (GWOT) for 20+ years.
Now imagine the loss of a carrier. 5k+ people, dozens of planes and a ship that is a vital national defense asset that cost billions and took years to build. This nation would lose its collective mind. You sink a carrier with a nuke, you better wipe out the US with your remaining nukes and do it fast because we're coming after you with our own. It would definitely result in a nuclear strike of our own and I don't think it would be proportionate in any way.
USA and the Sowiet Union had proxy wars during the Cold War.
You even mentioned the Vietnam war, were the US was actively shooting on one side, and the Sowiets supported the other.
So a generation that hasn't had any experience with the Cold War now has to relearn certain things, like living with the nuclear MAD doctrine as a backdrop of everyday life.
And yes, we don't want to trigger a nuclear war, billions would die, and society as we know it would end. But neither does Russia.
And so, we don't want them to do whatever.
I think you really missed the opportunity to take about Nixon and his mad men tactic, trying to scare the Sowiets with nuclear weapons into giving up Vietnam. This is an extremly interesting historical parallel, and it lets met sleep more soundly. I know this threat tactic has been tried before, it didnt result in the destruction of mankind.
The world is full of experts on nuclear weapons and the political decision making process to deploy them. Their internet bio says so.
Dude doesn't understand mutual assured destruction - MAD. Escalation to "dominate" is impossible.
Once you get to a certain level of arms, more bombs don't help. You are just making rubble bounce. Both the US and Russia are perfectly capable of rendering each other smoking ruins and you don't need any more than that. Even China has that ability.
Fascinating piece, Ryan. I admire how you can pull this information causally out of your butt without raising a sweat and make it all accessible in the context of common sense, based on your experience and access to information. It is true that the mention of nuclear war is an emotional hot button to most of us, so this kind of explanation is really valuable. I genuinely hope you really know what you are talking about. Thanks for doing this.
“Don’t. Touch. The boats.”
Thx Ryan for Calling Out and Pointing Out.
Semper Fi.
Having grown up in Southern California, I can tell you that there is definitely is a military industrial complex, employing, millions of people, making weapons for money, yes, they don’t make as much money as Silicon Valley, but they do make billions of dollars, and retired military guys use the revolving door to enter those industries after they retire. Perhaps we’re just arguing semantics? But as far as I can tell, there are people who run this country from behind closed doors, and Joe Biden is just their puppet . Remember the Wizard of Oz? Don’t look behind the curtain.
Where I think Colby may have been going is that on the tactical side most Russian missiles are dual-capable, including all their latest. We rely mostly on gravity bombs as our tactical nuclear arsenal, and stealth is our delivery advantage. Each Ohio-class SSBN also carries one or two Tridents with a low-yield (5kt) W76-2 warhead for tactical response. But they still face the problem of do you risk a launch being misconstrued as a strategic launch, and potentially trigger a strategic Launch-on-Warning response, to use them? Same reason we decided not to put conventional warheads on Tridents to meet the Prompt Global Strike requirement. We can also dial the yield on the ALCM's W80 to 5kt for use as a tactical weapon, though each tactical use diminishes our strategic warhead and cruise missile arsenal.
When Russia launches an Iskander, Khinzal, P-800, Kalibr, etc. somewhere in Europe you have no idea if the warhead is conventional or nuclear. You do know it doesn't represent a strategic threat, at least to the United States.
Once a decision is made to introduce tactical nuclear weapons to the battlefield Russia appears to have many more options for employing them than we, the U.K., and France. The U.K. doesn't even have a tactical response option. And you could conclude that besides the tactical delivery option diversity, Russia's dual-capable arsenal is indicative of the widespread integration of the use of tactical nukes in their doctrine. We don't APPEAR to have that kind of integration into our doctrine, instead it seems to be a wart on the side. Our capability exists to deter Russia, while Russia's capability exists to be used.
That said, you nailed the overall dynamics. I would fully expect Russia to use its tactical nukes to stop an invasion of its pre-2014 borders. I could see them seriously consider using them to stop a breakthrough into Crimea. But otherwise, the utility doesn't rise above the risk of both the NATO response (conventional or nuclear) or the political fallout from China, India, and Russia's few other friends.
Now do Professor John Mearsheimer
The thing with using a nuke on a carrier group, the enemy who does that needs to appreciate how valuable an asset that is to the U.S. It's not like parading an Abrams in Moscow for the Victory Day Parade. Carriers are essentially mobile islands that are considered part of the US.
When Pearl Harbor was bombed, we lost (roughly) 2K people, a half dozen old battleships and a couple hundred planes. We then entered a global conflict that ended with our using nukes on the nation that attacked us. It's where the whole "don't touch our boats" meme got rolling.
When 9/11 happened, we lost 3K people when the buildings collapsed. We then entered a global war on terror (GWOT) for 20+ years.
Now imagine the loss of a carrier. 5k+ people, dozens of planes and a ship that is a vital national defense asset that cost billions and took years to build. This nation would lose its collective mind. You sink a carrier with a nuke, you better wipe out the US with your remaining nukes and do it fast because we're coming after you with our own. It would definitely result in a nuclear strike of our own and I don't think it would be proportionate in any way.
I think we are in Cold War II, not in WW3.
USA and the Sowiet Union had proxy wars during the Cold War.
You even mentioned the Vietnam war, were the US was actively shooting on one side, and the Sowiets supported the other.
So a generation that hasn't had any experience with the Cold War now has to relearn certain things, like living with the nuclear MAD doctrine as a backdrop of everyday life.
And yes, we don't want to trigger a nuclear war, billions would die, and society as we know it would end. But neither does Russia.
And so, we don't want them to do whatever.
I think you really missed the opportunity to take about Nixon and his mad men tactic, trying to scare the Sowiets with nuclear weapons into giving up Vietnam. This is an extremly interesting historical parallel, and it lets met sleep more soundly. I know this threat tactic has been tried before, it didnt result in the destruction of mankind.
ADD much? Look a squirrel!
Good video.