Playing with fire: the Pentagon is reviewing the nuclear doctrine
The Pentagon is developing a new nuclear strategy that could legalize the use of tactical nuclear weapons in regional conflicts for the first time in decades. The authors insist that for deterrence to work, the US president must have "realistic" options for a nuclear strike that do not lead to a global catastrophe. However, experts and lawmakers fear that this will almost inevitably escalate into a full-scale nuclear war. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.
Revision of the nuclear doctrine
"We believe that we need reliable options for the use of nuclear weapons," a Pentagon source told NBC. The head of the Pentagon's policy directorate, Elbridge Colby, is developing a new strategy. He is a proponent of increasing the role of tactical weapons.
The country's previous nuclear strategy was updated two years ago. That was the first time it talked about the simultaneous deterrence of several opponents who possess nuclear weapons. Russia, China and the DPRK were implied. The emphasis is also on how flexibly the United States will plan a response to threats, including against states that Washington has taken under its "nuclear umbrella" as part of the concept of "expanded deterrence."
Colby decided to develop this approach. He is going to present his developments at a closed military meeting in Nebraska, during a visit to the Strategic Command of the US Armed Forces, which oversees the country's nuclear forces.
According to the head of the Pentagon's policy directorate, the United States' allies should be confident that Washington is ready to use all available weapons to protect them: not only strategic, but also tactical nuclear weapons (TNWS). He is confident that this will enhance the effect of their "expanded deterrence", but at the same time remove the threat of a global nuclear war.
As NBC notes, citing five sources, the new version calls into question the previous approach to nuclear weapons, which for decades was considered unshakable. The emphasis in this strategy is to focus on the possibility of using US tactical weapons in the event of a regional conflict with China or the Russian Federation.
The point is that the strategy will not exclude any options for the head of state. "Rather, it will expand the space for choice, providing realistic and reliable options, and thereby strengthen deterrence," the TV channel reports.
Lawmakers are concerned
The development of the new strategy began as part of the regular review that is usually carried out in the United States with each new head of state.
However, Colby's idea has worried some lawmakers. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Association for Arms Control in the United States, believes that tactical nuclear weapons should not be presented as an acceptable tool for warfare. According to him, all long-term military simulations confirm that even one nuclear explosion in a conflict involving a nuclear power almost inevitably leads to a full-scale nuclear war.
A senior Pentagon official said in an interview with NBC that for the "expanded deterrence" strategy to work properly, the US president must have such nuclear weapons, the use of which would look reasonable and probable in the eyes of the enemy. If all but the most extreme options seem like a bluff to the opponent, then deterrence will not work.
The number of weapons and their production
The difference between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons is in scale and range. The first is needed for pinpoint strikes on the battlefield or in border areas. The second is for deterrence: These are powerful rockets capable of reaching any city anywhere in the world. In terms of the total number of strategic carriers, Russia and the United States have parity. However, according to open sources, Russia has an advantage in tactical charges, although the exact figures are kept secret.
According to experts, the US tactical nuclear weapons arsenal currently includes about 230 B61 warheads (B61-3 and B61-4 series), which are delivered exclusively by F-15E fighter-bombers. Approximately 150 of them are deployed at six bases in five European countries as part of joint NATO programs, the rest are in storage in the United States.
In addition, the Pentagon is developing a new naval cruise missile with a nuclear warhead SLCM-N, which can be launched from surface ships and nuclear submarines. This project was initiated during the first presidential term of Donald Trump, then it was frozen under Joe Biden, but in the end Congress kept it.
The B61-12 program (modernization of existing bombs with the installation of a precision guidance system) is estimated at more than $10 billion. At the same time, they plan to produce about 400-480 units.
Meanwhile, the development of the W80-4 nuclear warhead for the SLCM-N is estimated at $310 billion. The total cost of the SLCM-N program for 2023-2032, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, will be about $10 billion.
Modernization of the tactical nuclear arsenal requires large-scale infrastructural investments. We are talking about the improvement of air bases in Europe to accommodate the B61-12 on next-generation aircraft (F-35A), the development and integration of control systems for SLCM-N, including the adaptation of ships and submarines. In addition, it involves updating the ground infrastructure for the storage, maintenance and transportation of new ammunition (including the replacement of communication and control systems at storage bases), as well as personnel training and the creation of new production facilities for the assembly of warheads.
Experts note that in fact, it's not so much about creating fundamentally new systems as about restoring lost competencies: the United States decommissioned all nuclear Tomahawks from the fleet back in 2011 and is now trying to return this class of weapons. The situation is similar with the B61: the program is considered as an "extension of the service life" of existing ammunition, however, in terms of its costs and scope of work, it is comparable to the creation of new weapons.
Dangerous situation
Konstantin Bogdanov, head of the Strategic Analysis and Forecasting Sector at the IMEMO RAS Center for International Security, believes that nothing new has happened at the moment, since talks about a graduated escalation have been going on for decades. Now this question has arisen due to the fact that Elbridge Colby is a long-time proponent of the idea of controllability of nuclear escalation.
— He believes that nuclear deterrence should be strengthened in such a way that the enemy understands that nuclear weapons can be used. And to do this, you need to have the appropriate weapons," the expert notes.
He also explains that Colby's second idea is that there is no need to cling to the strategic level, because it is very dangerous. If a Pentagon official manages to get his concept into the nuclear doctrine, then there will most likely be some general comments and solutions on the topic of supporting, restoring and strengthening nuclear deterrence together with the allies.
— In principle, there is no need to exaggerate this story, the issue arose 40-50 years ago and gradually developed. It may be accelerated or slowed down, and the new administration may change course. There was a similar logic in the late 2010s. Instructions on conducting nuclear operations were accidentally published, in which it was explicitly stated that the task is to use nuclear weapons to end the conflict on conditions favorable to the United States," the expert recalls.
He also emphasizes that the emphasis in this situation is on tactical nuclear weapons. This is the basic idea, according to which the use of nuclear weapons should be in geographically limited theaters, with very small forces, so that the enemy does not think that a large-scale nuclear attack is underway and does not strike back. The expert also suggests that we are talking about either the latest B-61 bombs that the United States has, or the SLCM-N nuclear cruise missiles.
— They are not ready yet, they are being made, the United States decommissioned nuclear Tomahawks from the fleet in 2011, and now they are trying to return them. These weapons are likely to be a potential tool for such a doctrine of use in regional scenarios," the analyst expects.
Meanwhile, Alexander Ermakov, a junior researcher at the IMEMO RAS Center for International Security, believes that there are too many general words without specifics in the NBC material.
— One could also say that about the "increase in the role of TNW", since this is a steady trend in American military thought simply because the role and reserves were extremely reduced to zero years. They will need to continue this trend for a long time in order to get closer to China and Russia in this area," the expert believes.
In his opinion, the programs for the creation of non-strategic nuclear weapons, which are slowly being promoted, indicate an interest in it much more than doctrines.
"The words about strengthening expanded deterrence to support the allies are also quite general and fit into the discussions of recent decades," the analyst is sure.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
