The Continuing Nuclear Threat

Timothy Birdnow

In a discussion on Facebook a man named John Trauger argues nuclear weapons are sooo last century and no real threat.

John Trauger says:

Nukes don't bother me. they are a 20th century problem more than 21st, Russia nothwithstandin

The problem with a serious nuclear exchange is these days it's hard to actually have one. The US has a large arsenal of nukes but who else does?

China's building up and they're the best candidate. But they're also starting to fray at the seams.

The Soviet Union, AKA Russia and the usual go-to for MAD simply doesn't have the heuvos rancheros to hold up their end of Armageddon.

The Soviets were the 20th Century's nuclear bugaboo but these days, it's easy to see they simply don't have much mojo left. They have blundered around in the Ukraine with an obviously substandard and underfunded conventional military which Russia *should* have expected to actually use. What state would their strategic missiles and warheads be in, when Russia does *not* need to actually use them to achive their goal of deterrence? How much of Russia's stockpile are merely rifles on the walls at Ft. Zinderneuf?

I've heard estimates as high as 6000 missiles for Russia. It's anybody's guess how many will actually launch properly or hit what they're aimed at. And from there how many warheads will go off properly and how many of those have fissionables that were re-enriched recently enough to actually go nuclear as opposed to being "dirty bombs".

If Russia is smart and can spare the funds they will have as small number of missiles and warheads maintained as they can get away with just to preserve the technology and the skills to use it. I can't see that being more than the double-digits of warheads and missiles. The rest will be rolls of the dice with a large amount of duds.

In my hopefully thoughtful opinion, Russia has lost the ability to destroy the US. But they *can* hurt us. We don't lightly court nuclear war with them because we cannot be sure our missile defense will save us.

But at the same time there's no real threat of a world engulfed by flames either. There's no "Damnation Alley" scenario anymore.

None of the other nuclear powers in the world have enough missiles to seriously threaten the US. The problem with nukes these days is a theater nuclear war. Iran vs. Israel comes to mind, or India vs. Pakistan. There's also the threat of nuclear terrorism where a nuke is hidden in a tramp steamer or even a shipping container.

Those are the 21st entury nuclear threats.

Tim responds:

I disagree; the Russians have a nuclear arsenal larger than that of the U.S. and it is more modern, having been built in the middle of the first decade of this century. Some of ours go back to the eighties.

The Russians currently possess 6,255 warheads compared to the American arsenal of 5,500. https://nypost.com/2022/02/28/how-the-us-stacks-up-against-russias-nuclear-arsenal/

And the START treaty funded the construction of a whole new arsenal (it was supposed to pay to decommission the old Soviet arsenal) so the Russians have a newer, more powerful one. https://time.com/4280169/russia-nuclear-security-summit/

And they have been upgrading all along. The media won't talk about it but the fact is the Russians are an existential nuclear threat and the brinkmanship we are playing in the Ukraine is a dangerous game.

That said, I would agree we don't know how well Russian technology will work when actually used, but then we don't know how well our own technology will work either. We may have neglected our own arsenal tot he point where a lot of the bombs will not detonate, or the birds not fly.

Meanwhile, the Russians have developed hypersonics which can defeat our missile defense systems and a host of other high tech weaponry. https://defense.info/re-shaping-defense-security/2021/07/russias-emerging-hypersonic-strike-systems/

The Russians may not be good at overall military operations (like invading Ukraine) but they are very good at this.

We can fry them, but they can probably fry us as well.

Here is more on Russia's new weaponry. https://www.rferl.org/a/here-s-what-we-know-russia-s-new-generation-of-nuclear-capable-weapons/29778663.html

I would argue that the real threat is tactical nukes; the Russians or Chinese could use nukes against, say, an American fleet in the ocean and dare us to launch. Would we do it? Does anyone see Joe Biden actually pushing the button over that?

I don't. I see few American Presidents blowing up the world over a tactical strike.

I agree the cargo container terrorist attack is possible - primarily with state sponsorship. I do not think terrorists could obtain a bomb without that, and most countries so inclined would know the real risk that we would be able to figure out who did it fairly quickly. I rather suspect none of our enemies would risk it, at least not without a proper return on such an investment. They would want more than just blowing up one American city.

At any rate, I respect your opinion here. Just saying I don't necessarily agree (although I don't necessarily disagree with all of it.)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:32 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 862 words, total size 6 kb.