US Puts Low-Yield Nukes on Submarines in
Response to Made-up Russian ‘Escalate to
Deescalate’ Strategy
By Scott Ritter
February 13, 2020 "Information
Clearing House" - The US
has deployed “low-yield” nuclear missiles on
submarines, saying it’s to discourage nuclear
conflict with Russia. The move is based on a
“Russian strategy” made up in Washington and will
only bring mass annihilation closer.
In a statement released earlier this week, US Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy John Rood announced
that “the US Navy has fielded the W76-2 low-yield
submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM)
warhead.” This new operational capability, Rood
declared, “demonstrates to potential adversaries
that there is no advantage to limited nuclear
employment because the United States can credibly
and decisively respond to any threat scenario.”
The threat underpinning justification for this new
US nuclear deterrent had its roots in testimony
delivered to the House Armed Services Committee in
June 2015 by US Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert
Work, who declared that “Russian military doctrine
includes what some have called an ‘escalate to
deescalate strategy’ – a strategy that purportedly
seeks to deescalate a conventional conflict through
coercive threats, including limited nuclear use.”
However, any review of actual Russian nuclear
doctrine would have shown this to be a false
premise. Provision 27 of the 2014 edition of
‘Russian Military Doctrine’ states that
Russia “shall reserve the right to use nuclear
weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other
types of weapons of mass destruction against it
and/or its allies, as well as in the event of
aggression against the Russian Federation with the
use of conventional weapons when the very existence
of the state is in jeopardy. The decision to use
nuclear weapons shall be taken by the President of
the Russian Federation.”
|
Are You Tired Of
The Lies And
Non-Stop Propaganda?
|
Russian threat, made in
America
Despite this, the concept of ‘escalate to
deescalate’ as official Russian military doctrine
had become ingrained in official US nuclear doctrine
by 2018, with the publication of the US Defense
Department’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Moscow,
the 2018 NPR claimed, “threatens and exercises
limited nuclear first use, suggesting a mistaken
expectation that coercive nuclear threats or limited
first use could paralyze the United States and NATO
and thereby end a conflict on terms favorable to
Russia. Some in the United States refer to this as
Russia’s ‘escalate to deescalate’ doctrine.”
In response to this “made in America” Russian
threat, the 2018 NPR identified a requirement to
modify a number of submarine-launched ballistic
missiles (SLBMs) with low-yield nuclear warheads to
strengthen US nuclear deterrence by providing US
military commanders with a weapon that
addresses “the conclusion that potential
adversaries, like Russia, believe that employment of
low-yield nuclear weapons will give them an
advantage over the United States and its allies and
partners.”
As was the case with Robert Work’s 2015
congressional testimony, the 2018 NPR did not
provide the source for the existence of a Russian
‘escalate to deescalate’ doctrine, except to note
that it originated in the US – not Russia.
Nonetheless, based upon the 2018 NPR, President
Donald Trump requested that the Defense Department
acquire a new low-yield nuclear warhead for the
Trident SLBM, setting in motion a process which
culminated in the recent announcement that this new
warhead had reached operational capacity.
Voices of reason fall on deaf ears
In response to President Trump’s request, a letter,
signed by a laundry list of notable American
statesmen, politicians and military officers,
including former Secretary of State George Schultz,
former Secretary of Defense William Perry and the
former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General
James Cartwright, was sent to the Senate Majority
Leader, Mitch McConnell, stating that there was no
need for this new “low yield” warhead. The letter
furthermore noted that the premise of this warhead —
the so called ‘escalate to deescalate’ Russian
doctrine — was derived from a “false narrative”
combining non-existent Russian intent with an
equally fictitious “deterrence gap” that could only
be filled by the new nuclear weapon. This letter
fell on deaf ears.
At a meeting of the Valdai Club in October 2018,
Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the issue
of Russian nuclear doctrine, prompted by questions
raised by the publication of the 2018 NPR. “There is
no provision for a pre-emptive strike in our nuclear
weapons doctrine,” Putin declared. “Our concept is
based on a reciprocal counter strike. There is no
need to explain what this is to those who
understand, as for those who do not, I would like to
say it again: this means that we are prepared and
will use nuclear weapons only when we know for
certain that some potential aggressor is attacking
Russia, our territory…[o]nly when we know for
certain — and this takes a few seconds to understand
— that Russia is being attacked we will deliver a
counter strike. This would be a reciprocal counter
strike. Why do I say ‘counter’? Because we will
counter missiles flying towards us by sending a
missile in the direction of an aggressor.”
There’s no such thing as ‘limited’ nuke use
In a 1982 article published in Foreign Affairs
entitled ‘Nuclear Weapons and the Atlantic
Alliance’, four senior American statesmen (McGeorge
Bundy, George F. Kennan, Robert S. McNamara and
Gerard C. Smith) who had a hand in crafting US
nuclear policy declared that “No one has ever
succeeded in advancing any persuasive reason to
believe that any use of nuclear weapons, even on the
smallest scale, could reliably be expected to remain
limited.”
This fact holds as true today as it did when the
article was written. Perhaps there is no better
voice to emphasize this point than Russian President
Vladimir Putin, again addressing the 2018 Valdai
Conference.
“Of course, [the decision to launch nuclear weapons
in defense of Russia] amounts to a global
catastrophe, but I would like to repeat that we
cannot be the initiators of such a catastrophe
because we have no provision for a pre-emptive
strike. Yes, it looks like we are sitting on our
hands and waiting until someone uses nuclear weapons
against us. Well, yes, this is what it is. But then
any aggressor should know that retaliation is
inevitable, and they will be annihilated.”
And we as the victims of an aggression, we as
martyrs would go to paradise while they will simply
perish because they won’t even have time to repent
their sins.
The Trump administration would do well to ponder
these words as they embrace the false deterrence of
the new “low yield” nuclear-armed Trident SLBM. The
fact of the matter is it deters nothing, and only
invites global annihilation.
Scott Ritter spoke out against the
case being made by the US government for war with
Iraq. After the US-led invasion of Iraq in March
2003, Ritter spoke out against the war. He continues
to do so today, offering critical analysis of
American foreign and national security policy.
Do you agree or disagree? Post
your comment here
==See Also==
