Weapon control will be over

Putin's use of nuclear weapons forces Biden to make difficult choices

• The Ukrainian army will be the first target if Russia uses a nuclear weapon.

  AFP

• One option Biden could make is to reciprocate.

  AFP

picture

In light of the sudden military gains that Ukraine began to achieve in its battle with Russia, and the increasing pressure on Moscow internally and externally to end that war, many are wondering: “Will President Vladimir Putin resort to unconventional weapons to end this war in a face-saving manner?”

German writer and analyst, Andreas Kloth, who is concerned with European affairs, says in a report published by Bloomberg News Agency that President Putin does not want to use nuclear weapons, just as he does not want to continue waging his "special military operation" against Ukraine.

But he's still fighting, because he can't win, which also means he might drop a nuclear bomb, as he threatened again this week.

The United States and its allies and putative friends of Putin in China and elsewhere must now decide how they will react.

For Putin, nuclear escalation will not be a way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but to wrest survival, politically or even physically, from oblivion.

And unlike Democratic leaders, he has no way of retiring in a face-saving manner after all the damage he has done.

Kluth said Putin knows his end could be chaotic.

This is why he might dust off a Russian doctrine that Western analysts call "escalation to de-escalation," meaning switching to nuclear to avoid losing a conventional (non-nuclear) war.

Putin will detonate one or more "tactical" nuclear weapons (rather than strategic nuclear weapons).

These are low-impact explosions enough to wipe out a Ukrainian army post or logistics center, but too "small" to wipe out an entire city.

By dropping such a bomb, Putin would signal a willingness to use more, and his motive would be to force Ukraine to surrender and the West out of the conflict, but without prompting automatic retaliation by the United States.

Putin wants his enemies to step down, so he can declare victory and stay in power.

Needless to say, such an act of desperation would mark the darkest turning point in human history since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as it would not only kill, maim and traumatize huge numbers of innocent people, but would also cause lasting terror throughout the entire world.

Putin's escalation would unleash a Cold War-era taboo: the use of nuclear weapons for anything other than deterrence.

And if he thought he would do so with impunity, other nuclear rogue states would take it as their precursor, which in turn would force states that gave up nuclear weapons in the name of non-proliferation or disarmament, as Ukraine did in the 1990s, to build their own arsenals, and they would be Arms control is over, and nuclear war, intentionally or by accident, will become more likely in more places, from West Asia to South and East.

So what should US President Joe Biden do?

It is clear that he must deter Putin, while at the same time preparing a response if Putin escalates.

Matthew Kronig of the Atlantic Council, a think tank, outlined some options.

One response to a limited Russian nuclear strike is to double, triple, or quadruple all measures already taken by the West against the Putin regime, completely isolating Russia from the Western world.

Rather than acquiesce, the West will also send more weapons to Ukraine, and more forces, including nuclear weapons, to NATO's eastern front.

Such a deliberately limited response would aim to stop the spiral of escalation before it begins.

The problem is that Putin may not find this response frightening enough to deter him.

Putin is already a pariah, the Russians are already suffering under sanctions, and if he fears the end of his reign or his life, he still does everything.

Another problem is that a restrained response will seem woefully inadequate to Ukrainians and the rest of the world.

Friends of Kyiv will lose confidence, and dictators like Kim Jong-un in North Korea will conclude that you can resort to ballistic missiles to survive, says Kluth.

So Biden's response must be more forceful, and he has two military options. The first is to respond in kind, by deploying a low-impact tactical nuclear bomb in the Arctic Ocean, for example, or in remote Siberia.

The resulting "mushroom cloud" will be intended as a stop sign for Putin.

It would also reassure Ukrainians and the world that the United States would respond to escalation in kind and enforce the nuclear taboo.

The problem is that this would turn the confrontation into a horrific situation, possibly leading to a series of tactical bombings.

Russia, which is roughly on par with the United States on strategic nuclear weapons, has about 10 times as many tactical warheads as it can use.

It becomes impossible to calculate scenarios, especially when human error is taken into account.

And there will be a danger that the battle of "Armageddon" will start.

The best military option, therefore, is a conventional US strike against Russian forces.

The target could be the base itself that launched the nuclear strike, or it could be Russian forces in Ukraine.

For Putin, nuclear escalation would not be a way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but to wrest survival, politically or even physically, from oblivion.

Putin's escalation would unleash a Cold War-era taboo: the use of nuclear weapons for anything other than deterrence.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news