PrintWill Putin use his nukes or not?
The mainstream media's constant caterwauling over Putin's threat to go nuclear in Ukraine has spiked recently. Most of this is just another echo chamber. Seeing our atomic anxiety, Putin and company threaten nuclear war to undermine morale.
And yet the nukes exist. Because they exist; they are an option; and if you tilt your head left and squint real hard, Russia's constant threats look like thunder and lightning announcing a coming storm. Perhaps it's time to talk about how nukes fit into the current war.
The argument for Putin going nuclear is best summed up by Dan Goure's recent article on the National Interest website. Goure's argument boils down to the nuclear weapons being so icky and gross that the U.S. and NATO must never respond to any nuclear attack "in kind." Thus, Russia wins the moment the war goes nuclear.
Danny Boy gets a little right in that the U.S. will probably not respond "in kind" to the use of nuclear weapons but gets the end result wrong. The most probable result of any first use of nuclear weapons is the collapse of the Russian Army and Vlad Putin being removed from power.
This is not Russia's war; it is Putin's war. Instead of rallying around the flag, the Russian people are running away from Putin and his war. Putin's political opponents, of which there are many, are sniffing blood in the water but lack a way to rally the public behind them.
A failed escalation using nuclear weapons would be just the rally Putin's enemies need. And trust me on this: failure is the most likely outcome. Modern nukes and their delivery systems have never been used in combat. Actual, hands-on, real-world testing ended decades ago. No one knows what percentage of these weapons are duds.
This uncertainty applies to all nuclear weapons, but there is good reason to think Russian nukes are exceptionally unreliable. From the ignoble end of Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, to the role of shoddy maintenance in sabotaging Russia's war efforts, and the Nordstream debacle, Russian technology has proven to be not worth a cup of warm spit.
Why are their nukes different?
Now I am about to give away the big plot twist. Even if everything works right and Putin gets his earth-shattering ka-boom, he still loses. How?
The West doesn't need to respond in kind (i.e., a nuclear response) to a nuclear strike. Conventional forces now in Europe are sufficient to deal with Russia. A failed atomic strike green-lights giving the Ukrainians main battle tanks, jets, and other weapons currently off limits. The Russian Army collapses, and Putin's many enemies remove him before he can double down on stupid.
A successful nuclear strike brings NATO into the fight. Within hours of Putin's nuclear strike, NATO can establish air superiority over Ukraine and begin recreating Kuwait's highway of death. By the end of the first day, the Black Sea Fleet will cease to exist, and Putin's domestic enemies will be hustling to retire him before he doubles down on stupid.
Given the outcome, why would Vlad Putin, who is neither stupid nor suicidal, go down this road? Short answer: He doesn't. We can rule out any nuclear explosions in the near future. As for all the end-of-world hype, the next time a media hack, all soaking wet and with thunder and lightning in the background, tells you it's raining, look out the window. He might be lying to you.
