US push for
low-yield nukes makes atomic war MORE likely as Russia
will retaliate with full force, Moscow says
By Nebojsa Malic
April 30, 2020 "Information
Clearing House" - The US State Department’s
case for tactical nuclear weapons is a case study in
psychological projection not seen since the darkest days
of the Cold War and its ever-present threat of
world-ending atomic holocaust.
Back in
February, the Pentagon announced the US Navy has fielded
the first batch of W76-2 low-yield submarine launched
ballistic missile (SLBM) warheads. A paper by the State
Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, published last
week, aimed to explain the reasoning behind this move
and “debunk” the critics. The
10-page document was
endorsed by the acting Under Secretary for arms control
Christopher Ford, who hailed the missiles as
“reducing net nuclear risks.”
On
Wednesday, however, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman
Maria Zakharova called the move “a deliberate
blurring of the lines between non-strategic and
strategic nuclear weapons” that
“inevitably leads to a lowering of the
nuclear threshold and an increase in the threat of
nuclear conflict.”
Everyone who wants to do this
should understand that according to the
Russian military doctrine, such actions will
be considered the basis for the reciprocal
use of nuclear weapons by Russia
At the root of this discrepancy is a fundamental
misunderstanding. Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon are
basing their arguments not on the actual Russian
doctrine or behavior, but on their belief as to what
those might be.
For example, there is an unquestioned assumption in
US policy circles that Russia has a nuclear doctrine
described as “escalate to de-escalate” – which
“purportedly seeks to deescalate a conventional
conflict through coercive threats, including limited
nuclear use,” according to a 2015 congressional
testimony of then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert
Work.
As former
UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter pointed out, Work’s
own words reveal that this is not the actual Russian
doctrine, but the impression of it by
some US analysts. Whoever originated this utter fantasy
is irrelevant; it ranks right alongside
Molly McKew’s“expertise”
on Russian nuclear posture or the likewise widespread
acceptance of the nonexistent
“Gerasimov Doctrine.”