U.S. Considers Nuclear Strikes As An Option Against Russia
By Christopher Morris
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/us-nuclear-strikes-against-russia-report/
Nuclear option on the tableBy Christopher Morris
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/us-nuclear-strikes-against-russia-report/
As tensions increase between Russia and the United States, a chilling report suggests that a nuclear strike is not beyond the realm of possibility. According to the report, numerous sources have reported on the meeting of US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter at the headquarters of the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany, with two dozen other US military commanders and European diplomats in tow.
Most serious of all, though, is a recent report published by the Associated Press which suggests that the head of the US military effort, the Pentagon, has been actively considering the use of nuclear missiles against military targets in Russia. This may seem like a dire prospect to anyone aware of the possible consequences of such an action, yet the United States administration apparently considers this a possible response to alleged violations of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.
Reports suggest that three separate options are currently being considered by Pentagon top brass, which include a pre-emptive deployment of nuclear missiles against targets inside Russia. Although this would be a particularly extreme option, it is widely believed to be on the table alongside two other less drastic courses of action. The placement of anti-missile defenses in Europe aimed at shooting Russian missiles straight out of the sky, and pre-emptive non-nuclear strikes are also reportedly under consideration.
A Pentagon spokesman that spoke to the Associated Press did not explicitly confirm the reports, but did state that all military options under consideration are designed to ensure that Russia gains no significant military advantage from the alleged violation. Meanwhile, Russia continues to deny the suggestion that it has violated the 1987 Treaty, stating that its actions have been entirely consistent with this legislation.
The consequences of a nuclear strike against Russia
It should be naturally underlined that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia could quite conceivably, and some might say inevitably, lead to a full-scale nuclear war. The consequences of this are almost incalculable and unimaginable, but the absolutely most optimistic scenario would be that hundreds of millions of lives would be lost. Considering that this option appears to be on the table, it has not unreasonably led some sources to describe the foreign policy of Washington and its NATO allies as staggeringly criminal and reckless.
While such an extreme suggestion as a pre-emptive nuclear strike is always likely to attract naysayers, it is important to assert that there is already significant precedent of such an act occurring. Generations of Americans grew up under the shadow of the Cold War, when the prospect of nuclear war seemed a distinct possibility on a daily basis. At that time, what can best be described as a maniacal nuclear war arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States was a source of concern all over the world, and although this obviously didn't ultimately result in full-scale nuclear war, it is a matter of the public record that this unsavoury prospect did indeed come extremely close to a horrifying realisation.
Arkhipov and the Cuban Missile Crisis
Following the failed attempt of the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, then president John F. Kennedy authorized Operation Mongoose, a series of by now familiar covert CIA actions designed to undermine and overthrow Cuban supremo Fidel Castro, and ultimately to the Cuban Missile Crisis stand-off with the Soviets. During this tense time, Russian submarines that were under attack from US destroyers were carrying nuclear-tipped missiles. Two of the commanders authorized their use, and a third commander, Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov, vetoed it. Had the missiles been fired, it almost certainly would have led to a full-scale nuclear war.
As the stand-off between Russia and China and United States continues to brew, it is important to remember that while one does not wish to engage in needless scaremongering, the last time two major nuclear powers had such a ‘disagreement’ in 1963, the world was one word away from nuclear war. We can be entirely thankful to Vasili Arkhipov that it didn’t happen, and it is pretty scandalous that this is being considered as a serious option now.
Vietnam, Hiroshima and Nagasaki
In addition to the Arkhipov incident, it also came out as a result of the Watergate tape leaks that then president Nixon once floated the idea of using nuclear weapons against Vietnam. This policy was discussed during a conversation with the infamous policy adviser Henry Kissinger, with the then president of the United States even contemplating and discussing with Kissinger the number of people that such an action would be likely to kill.
Without getting deeply into the historical context and consequences of this particular action, it is also important to recognize and remember that the United States is the only country in history to have utilized full-scale atomic weaponry. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945, killed at least 129,000 people, and remain the only use of nuclear weapons for warfare in history. While some historians and apologists for this particular act suggested that it was necessary in the context of the war, many people disagree from a moral and ethical standpoint, and there are also numerous historians who suggest that Japan was on the verge of surrender without such a drastic action being undertaken.
Regardless of the historical context of nuclear weapons, the fact remains that both Russia and the United States are known to be the largest possessors of such weaponry in the world. There is debate and disagreement over which of the United States or Russia has the most nuclear weapons, but what is unavoidable is that both have enough to cause an almost unfathomable loss of life should they be utilized. We can only hope that the hawkish elements of the United States government steer well clear from the disastrous path that is being contemplated.
FILE - In this Dec. 24, 1997 file photo, soldiers prepare to destroy a ballistic SS-19 missile in the yard of the largest former Soviet military rocket base in Vakulenchuk, Ukraine. The Obama administration is weighing a range of aggressive responses to Russia’s alleged violation of a Cold War-era nuclear missile treaty, including deploying land-based missiles in Europe that could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons. This “counterforce” option is among possibilities the administration is discussing as it reviews its entire policy toward Russia in light of Moscow’s military intervention in Ukraine, its annexation of Crimea and other confrontational actions in Europe and beyond. The options go so far as one implied -- but not stated explicitly -- that would improve the ability of U.S. nuclear weapons to destroy military targets on Russian territory. (AP Photo, File)
By ROBERT BURNS
This "counterforce" option is among possibilities the administration is considering as it reviews its entire policy toward Russia in light of Moscow's military intervention in Ukraine, its annexation of Crimea and other actions the U.S. deems confrontational in Europe and beyond.
The options go so far as one implied — but not stated explicitly — that would improve the ability of U.S. nuclear weapons to destroy military targets on Russian territory.
It all has a certain Cold War ring, even if the White House ultimately decides to continue tolerating Russia's alleged flight-testing of a ground-launched cruise missile with a range prohibited by the treaty.
Russia denies violating the treaty and has, in turn, claimed violations by the United States in erecting missile defenses.
It is unclear whether Russia has actually deployed the suspect missile or whether Washington would make any military move if the Russians stopped short of deployment. For now, administration officials say they prefer to continue trying to talk Moscow into treaty compliance.
In public, administration officials have used obscure terms like "counterforce" and "countervailing strike capabilities" to describe two of its military response options, apparently hoping to buy time for diplomacy.
The Pentagon declined to make a senior defense policy official available to discuss the issue. A spokesman, Lt. Col. Joe Sowers, said, "All the options under consideration are designed to ensure that Russia gains no significant military advantage from their violation."
At his Senate confirmation hearing in February, Defense Secretary Ash Carter noted his concern about Russia's alleged violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces, or INF, treaty. He said disregard for treaty limitations was a "two-way street" opening the way for the U.S. to respond in kind.
The standoff speaks volumes about the depths to which U.S.-Russia relations have fallen. And that poses problems not only for the Obama administration but also for the NATO alliance, whose members in eastern Europe are especially leery of allowing Russian provocations to go unanswered.
Western leaders are meeting Sunday and Monday for a G-7 summit — from which Russian President Vladimir Putin has been excluded — where Russian aggression will be a key topic. On Friday, Carter plans to meet in Germany with American defense and diplomatic officials to map out a counterstrategy to Russia's military intervention in Ukraine and to reassure allies worried about Moscow.
The U.S. and its Western partners have tried to use economic and diplomatic leverage against Putin on a range of conflicts, including Ukraine. But they also recognize that Moscow still plays an important role in international affairs, including the nuclear talks with Iran that are among President Barack Obama's highest foreign policy priorities.
The administration is considering three options for responding militarily to Russian missile treaty violations: defenses to stop a treaty-violating missile, the "counterforce" option to attack a missile preemptively and the "countervailing strike capabilities" option that implies the potential use of nuclear forces.
One of Carter's nuclear policy aides, Robert Scher, testified in April that "counterforce" means "we could go about and actually attack that missile where it is in Russia." Another Pentagon official, Brian McKeon, testified in December that this option involved potential deployment in Europe of ground-launched cruise missiles.
Scher said another option would involve "not simply attacking" the Russian missile but seeing "what things we can hold at risk within Russia itself." Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists, said this could mean further improving the ability of U.S. nuclear or conventional forces to destroy Russian military targets in addition to missiles deemed to violate the INF treaty.
Kristensen said the public discussion of these options amounts to "one hell of a gamble" that Putin will back down on INF.
The Obama administration has been relatively gentle in poking Moscow publicly on the INF issue. The State Department's top arms control official, Rose Gottemoeller, has called the alleged Russian violations a "very grave concern." In December she argued against declaring the treaty dead, saying America's allies also are opposed to that approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment