Nuclear Danger Rises In Ukraine As Putin Strikes Eastward

Vladimir Putin has played the mad man card in Ukraine by threatening the use of nuclear weapons. His threats have been rightly downplayed by the Biden administration. The Russian leader hasn’t lost his marbles; he’s a calculating and cunning man. He’s clearly capable of making bad decisions, but that doesn’t make him crazy. Someone in possession of his faculties doesn’t see value in mushroom clouds — not even to salvage a misbegotten war.

The odds are strongly against Putin’s deliberate use of nuclear weapons in this war. Instead, nuclear dangers are rising as Putin launches strikes near the Polish border. Here and elsewhere, NATO resupply efforts increase exponentially, turning the tables on Putin’s war effort. U.S. troops have also redeployed to reassure front-line members of NATO. As the friction of war increases, the danger of escalation grows.

The most serious nuclear danger in this war isn’t from Putin’s premeditated use of nuclear weapons; the most serious nuclear danger arises from escalation prompted by a Russian screwup that produces NATO casualties.

Standard issue nuclear deterrence theory doesn’t dwell on screwups, accidents and awful decision making in war. The only way that nuclear deterrence theory could have retained so many adherents for so long is by presuming rational decisions by leaders in control of events.

We know better. We know that leaders in warfare are capable of woefully bad decisions; Putin is but the latest example of this. We also know that leaders who make good decisions after rejecting bad advice can be undermined by the tactics of soldiers, sailors and pilots carrying out orders. Think of President John F. Kennedy’s decision to impose a quarantine round Cuba, and how its overzealous implementation by the U.S. Navy nearly prompted nuclear war. As for screwups, consider the test firing of an unarmed Indian missile across the Pakistan border just last week. A misguided Russian missile could land on NATO territory.

The tide has already begun to turn against Russian troops. The question before us is how Putin reacts to his losses. He won’t whimper. Nor will he bring down the temple of Mother Russia by using nuclear weapons against NATO. There’s plenty of space in between for bad decisions, screwups and accidents. That’s where nuclear dangers lie.

Deterrence theorists keep rediscovering ways that nuclear weapons can serve useful purposes in warfare, and how slight advantage can yield major dividends — like using tactical, or low-yield nuclear weapons. Why, then, hasn’t this happened over the past seven decades?

There have to be good reasons for abstinence. And there are many. Nuclear weapons do not help ground forces seize and hold territory. Instead, they get in the way of ground offensives. Then there’s the problem of nuclear escalation control, which is based on theory and wishful thinking, not proven behavior.

There is, on the other hand, considerable evidence of escalation control in conventional warfare — including escalation control in this war. A case in point is President Volodymyr Zelensky’s appeal to the U.S. Congress for a “no-fly zone” over Ukrainian skies. How this happens matters greatly. Sending NATO aircraft to patrol the skies over Ukraine will not stop the shelling and the missile attacks; this would require air strikes against targets on the ground. Nor would a no-fly zone by means of NATO planes stop the launch of stand-off weapons by Russian fighter jets operating in Russian air space. That would require taking the fight directly to Russia.

There are other ways and means to establish a no-fly zone for Russian aircraft that do not invite uncontrolled escalation while punishing the Russian air force. Man-portable Stingers are exacting a significant toll; more are on the way, and potentially longer-range air defense systems.

President Biden and his advisers have made excellent decisions, but harder ones lie ahead. Foremost among them are challenges to escalation control as the tide of war turns against Russia. A second major challenge will be how to end this carnage without rewarding Putin for waging an aggressive war. Then there’s the challenge of how best to react to more bad decisions by Putin, accidents and screwups.