RANT: NUCLEAR BINGO

 

 

WAITING FOR THOSE LAST FEW NUMBERS to be called to fill your card at the local bingo hall is one thing. Waiting for those final numbers when you’re dealing with nuclear weapons is a whole, other kettle of fish.

I’ve mentioned previously that the one major nuclear arms agreement still intact between Russia and the United States, the New START treaty, is set to expire in 2026 unless both sides renew it. We’re still waiting for those renewal talks to commence, but I’m not holding my breath that will be anytime soon. It’s Wile E. Coyote time, folks.

 

The New START treaty limits the number of “operational” or armed missiles, ICBMs (“Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles”) and submarine launched ballistic missiles (“SLBMs”) for each side. Roughly 1500 armed nuclear warheads (Russia has slightly more) are installed in various delivery systems. There are several thousand more warheads in storage and scheduled to be decommissioned by both countries (see chart below). After 2026, unless the treaty is renegotiated, we can expect to see a new arms race, as each side deploys more of its store of warheads and builds more nuclear weapons and launch systems.[It might be a good time to add more weapons manufacturers to your stock portfolio; there might be a boom in your future. Just sayin'. Ed.]😁

 

👉It should be noted that in 2002, the American president George W. Bush withdrew from the long-standing Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty.

The 1972 ABM treaty limited both USSR/Russia and the United States to just two anti-ballistic missile batteries in their respective countries. Obviously, this was no more than a symbolic gesture of ballistic missile “defense” and would be wholly inadequate to protect continental United States or the vast landmass of the USSR/Russia. The treaty's purpose was to keep both countries vulnerable to the other’s ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers. If both were vulnerable (without a real defense), then both would be deterred from attacking the other, when the reciprocal destruction of their own country was an all-but-assured consequence for launching a first strike. It was called the “MAD” (Mutual Assured Destruction) principle, and for decades it kept the nuclear powers in a kind of stasis and more or less minding their nuclear Ps and Qs.🚀

 

PRESIDENT BUSH'S EARLY 2000s' withdrawal from the treaty, saw the Americans develop anti-ballistic missile defense capabilities now that they were free from the constraints of the ABM treaty. But creating a viable ABM defense system is difficult to achieve and is no  guarantee for stopping anything close to 100% of a massed ICBM/SLBM attack. Recall the April 13 drone and missile attack by Iran against Israel, and how over-stretched Israel's vaunted "Iron Dome" missile defense umbrella became in only a single evening. Without Western air power, many more of the incoming missiles would have found their targets.  

NEVERTHELESS, the Americans stationed naval vessels in the Baltic and Barents Sea armed with AGEIS [from Gr. aigís meaning “goat skin”; later usage: “protection”, “a shield”. Ed.] cruise missiles. They later installed land-based AGEIS missile arrays in Poland and Romania over the objections of the Russians. The relative closeness of the NATO missile batteries to Russia made for the possibility that American ABMs could interdict some Russian ICBMs should they launch from silos in western Russia. The Kremlin pointed out that such missile arrays would compromise the Russian Federation's nuclear deterrence capability and give the Americans a dangerous advantage, tipping the strategic nuclear deterrence balance out of kilter. The Americans argued that the ABMs were there to defend against missiles from Iran or North Korea. 😆 Which is a bunch of crock! According to a leading nuclear arms expert, Professor Ted Postol, the "Aegis Ashore" batteries are not capable of intercepting incoming ICBMs from Iran. So why are they there, other than to guard dog the Russians? Doctor Postol makes the very relevant point that the Aegis Ashore system (like its naval counterpart) can easily be reconfigured to launch cruise missiles which are nuclear capable munitions. And, while they may currently be configured to launch only anti-air missiles, as the Americans claim, they can be quickly fitted out to launch offensive payloads. He says, the Russians are rightly concerned with this development.

 

[T]he Aegis systems in Eastern Europe have characteristics that make them especially threatening to Russia.... [They] were designed...to be able to launch both cruise missiles and anti-air missiles. This creates a short-warning attack threat to Russia via US conventional or nuclear-armed cruise missiles that were otherwise banned by the INF (Postol, "Russia")

 

IN THE EARLY 2000s, after the strictures against ABM development were removed following Bush's unwise walking away from the ABM treaty, and because of the Americans installations of so-called "defensive" missile batteries in eastern Europe, the  Russians developed alternative missile types and launch platforms that could overcome any ABM  system the U.S. might employ in the European theatre. They succeeded in producing ingenious workarounds like hypersonic missiles that cannot be intercepted, some of which are nuclear-capable. These missiles are now part of the Russian arsenal. They can travel up to Mach 10, that is, 10 times the speed of sound, thousands of miles per hour! No missile defense can stop them.

"We had to create these [hypersonic] weapons in response to the US deployment of a strategic missile defense system, which in the future would be capable of virtually neutralizing, zeroing out all our nuclear potential". Putin announcement 2018

 

IT'S AN UNNERVING THOUGHT: one side, with weapons that could conceivably shoot down incoming ballistic missiles or launch a first strike with hypersonics, disrupting with their speed the other side’s retaliatory launches. Of course, there are smaller-yield tactical nuclear weapons (bombs, artillery shells, missiles with a range under 500 miles) like those Russia has recently deployed in Belarus. The Americans, for their part, have 100 tactical nuclear bombs stored in six European nations that are currently being equipped with "glide bomb" technology. And there are the "defensive" missile arrays in Poland and Romania, previously mentioned, with a third battery proposed for Germany in 2026. 

 “In 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin gleefully^* unveiled a range of new developmental nuclear delivery systems—an intercontinental hyper-sonic glider, a nuclear-powered cruise missile, and a nuclear-powered torpedo—that he stated were a response to the demise of the ABM Treaty. History appears to back him up. The glider, which has now been deployed, was first tested in about 2004—just two years after the U.S. withdrawal took effect.” (Carnegie)

 

👉ANOTHER TREATY that the Americans walked away from was from 1987's Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)Treaty. This treaty was significant because it got rid of an entire ‘family’ of nuclear weapons (short, medium, intermediate-range missiles and their delivery systems. Over two thousand missiles and warheads were destroyed during this treaty’s existence, significantly reducing the chance for Europe being turned into a giant ashtray in the event of a nuclear war. Missile emplacements in Western Europe and those in Eastern Europe were destroyed and eliminated from both sides’ arsenals. But, after 2000, as I discussed earlier, strains were placed on the treaty’s viability with complaints from both sides of not abiding to the terms of the deal. And to be fair, there is evidence both sides pushed against the constraints of not being able to develop land-based, mobile and siloed cruise missile platforms. Russia was accused of working on a new type of cruise missile in the early 2000s, while the U.S., for its part, put anti-air batteries in Poland (2008) and Romania (2015) over the objections of the Russians who complained these so-called "defensive" anti-ballistic missile systems could be reconfigured to fire intermediate/long-range, nuclear-capable cruise missiles.

 

IN 2018, President Trump began the process to withdraw the United States from the INF treaty. And just recently, the Americans have inked a deal to install similar missile batteries in Germany by 2026.

 

“U.S. Army forces in Germany will field the multipurpose Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile, and a hyper-sonic missile that is still in development in ‘episodic deployments…as part of planning for enduring stationing of these capabilities in the future…’” (Arms Control)

 

UP TO THIS POINT, RUSSIA has refrained from installing intermediate-range missiles along Europe’s borders, and abides by the INF treaty protocols, though it is no longer obligated to do so. But if the German deployments go ahead “Russians will consider themselves “free” from a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range missiles.” (Arms Control)  Then its back to the future with Europe once more bristling with the latest generation of tactical and theatre non-nuclear and nuclear-capable missiles.

NOTE that Russia has delivered to its neighbour, Belarus, “tactical” or “theatre” nuclear weapons. These are short/medium-range missiles, artillery shells and air-dropped bombs, typically with lower explosive yields. (Only a half-Hiroshima, say.) Escalating tensions this year with the West prompted the Russians to ‘lay down a marker’ in Belarus,¹ warning NATO they were serious about completing their “special military operation” in Ukraine and ensure their borders were secure and their heartlands safe.

WHAT the now-defunct 1987 INF treaty accomplished in its nearly thirty years of existence was to eliminate such missile batteries from the European continent. Land-based cruise missiles, installed in the early 2000s in Poland and Romania, (mobile and siloed) and now potentially in Germany were, and are, seen as a threat to Russian security and another step up the nuclear escalation ladder.

 

WE SHOULD BE WORRIED when treaties that kept a semblance of order and calm in the relations between two nuclear superpowers, like the ABM and the INF treaties and soon perhaps New START,  are tossed out with nothing to replace them. It’s like watching (or listening, perhaps) to two heavy-weight boxers duke it out in a darkened arena, each unsure where the other is at, having to decide on the fly whether to block or go for a knockout punch.

👉AND IN THE CASE of nuclear fisticuffs, we hope neither bruiser lands a knockout blow, because there can be no winners of such a match, even if one of them goes down for the count. In nuclear gamesmanship that’s not the end of it, not by a long shot.

 

Cheers, Jake. ______________________________________

  

* "...gleefully..." A rather gratuitous dig at Russia's President Putin that I find annoying. It is supposed to give the reader the impression of Putin as a reckless trickster perhaps? Putin's announcement wasn't 'tongue-in-cheek' and it should have been a wake up call for the U.S. to get arms control negotiations working again, but nope, not in 2018 and not today either. So far. And while I appreciate the info from the Carnagie Institute, please save the jibes for real clowns, like Zelensky, Biden, Kamala, von de Leyen, Sholtz, Macron, Trudeau, etc. There are plenty of boobs go around....

 

1. When the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR ceased to exist, and its constituent parts became independent nations, the nuclear weapons' arsenals from several former Soviet republics were returned to Russia proper. Belarus was one such republic that had hosted Soviet nukes, tactical and otherwise, during the Cold War. Now they’re back in Belarus. Good job, guys!😨

NUCLEAR TREATIES OVER THE YEARS:

1963: Limited Test Ban Treaty

1968: Non-proliferation Treaty

1971-2: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I)

1972: ABM (“Anti-Ballistic Missile” treaty) cancelled 2001

1987: INF Treaty (“Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces” treaty) cancelled 2018

1991: START treaty (“Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty”)    

1992: Open Skies treaty (a mutual verification pact) cancelled 2020

1993: START II (not ratified)

2002: Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT)

2010: New START (in effect until 2026; limits overall number of nukes in U.S and Russia.)

 

VARIOUS NUCLEAR TREATIES have been able to reduce the number of nuclear warheads possessed by Russia and the United States from a high of nearly 60,000 in 1985 to roughly 5,000 a piece. These two countries hold 90% of the world's total nuclear warhead arsenals to date. There are currently nine nuclear weapons possessing countries.

 

Click here for a clear and easy-to-read timeline of all the treaties and talks around nuclear weapons control between the USSR/Russia and the U.S.

 

  

 

NEWS BITS AND BITES

 

I WAS PLEASED AS PUNCH to learn that WWIII didn’t start this week. Recall that Russian president Putin made a statement on September 12 warning the United States against lifting its restrictions on the use of long-range missiles (British “Storm Shadow”, French “Scalp” and American “ATACMS”) which require American or NATO personnel to launch them using American software and satellite guidance systems to reach targets deep inside Russian territory. Last week, Biden, who was book-ended between National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Sec of State Blinken, met in the White House with British pit-bull, PM, Sir Keir Starmer and his defense minister David Lammy, along with assorted mucky-mucks. At the meeting, the President surprised a number of the attendees, by placing  a  hold on lifting restrictions for the use of long-range missile systems by Ukraine. The change of heart must have surprised the British PM who’d come to Washington with the signing documents in hand. [Why are the British so damned determined to start a war with Russia?] There were supposed to be smiles and glad handing all round the White House as the two leaders announced their decision to allow Ukraine to launch long range British missiles into Russia. Some commentators suggest Biden was furious he could not give the go-ahead for the missile strikes at last Friday’s meeting.  

SO, WHAT HAPPENED to freeze the deal? Presumably there were last minute back-channel communications between Russia and the U.S. It’s entirely possible that the new Russian defense Minister Andrey Belousov spoke with his American counterpart, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, warning him that such missile attacks into the Russian heartland were a red line for Russia, and if they are conducted, then NATO and the U.S. could expect a major escalation as a consequence. If NATO personnel, sheep dipped or otherwise, pulled the trigger using targeting data gleaned from American satellites, then Russia would have no alternative other than to declare war against NATO and the United States for, in truth, the war would inarguably be between the West and Russia. Belousov may have spelled out just what kinds of attacks Russia would pursue in retaliation. The Pentagon may have decided it was too risky a venture and would have little effect on the fighting inside Ukraine. Frightening stuff! Austin must have conveyed the seriousness of Russia’s stance to Biden and the president blinked. Fortunately. For all of us.

Later, Britain’s sad sack PM went home with his tail between his legs and no green light authorization.

 

FOLLOWING the disappointing foreign policy summit, an extremely annoyed Ukraine launched drones (from inside one the Baltics or from Ukraine proper is unclear) striking a weapons depot* and blowing it up in spectacular fashion. The operation was done to prove to its Western backers that Ukraine was still in the game and that attacking inside Russia is okay because Putin is bluffing and won’t do anything extraordinary in his response to the attack. (Such as nuke-up and fire!) Fingers are crossed on that one.🤞

    This bromance has got to stop!!

President Zelensky is set to address the United Nations in New York next week and meet Biden on the sidelines where the two will discuss Zelensky’s “Victory Plan” for Biden to read and support. Cooler heads prevailed last week but, who knows, the Biden administration may change its mind on Monday and give the go-ahead.

👉IN THE MEANTIME, enjoy the balmy, early fall weather this weekend because it may become decidedly more radioactive in the not-too-distant future if things carry on the way they are.

👉AND OF COURSE, how can we forget NATO’s favourite poodle, Canada’s PM Trudeau, who, last week, gave his full-throated support for Ukraine to launch long range missiles into Russia. Didn’t he get the memo that the Americans ixnayed the deal? Putz!

 

Cheers, Jake.______________________________________

 

* The Ukrainian drone attack occurred in the western Russian city of Toropets, some 250 miles west of Moscow. The weapons depot stored Russia’s high-tech “Iskander” missiles, along with glide bombs and other heavy munitions. The explosion is thought to have triggered earthquakes in the area registering magnitudes of 2.5 to 2.8 on the Richter scale. It is unclear where they were launched from: Inside Russia? From Ukraine? Or from one of the Baltic states?

👉And BTW, Canada has about 1600 CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) troops stationed in Lithuania under NATO command. Were they involved in launching the drone attack against the Russian arms depot? If so, they may have just painted a big bull’s eye on their back if Russia deems the attack warrants a response against the facilities that launched and controlled the drones, regardless of whether it’s a NATO member or not

👉It should be noted that these type of pinprick attacks by Ukraine won’t alter the trajectory of the war. Russia will soon capture the entire Donbas region, and is poised to move to the Dniper River. Soon, it may move on  Odessa or Kiev. Or both. Stay tuned.

 

 

 

 

CRINGE PIC OF THE MONTH

 

 

PIC IS OF Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, outside his underground bunker earlier this month. The president is quoted as saying:

 

“My compatriots, tonight I smell Putin’s fear, taste his sour breath. His is the rank, graveyard reek of decomposing bodies. He has the stink of a dead-man walking, a zombie. Though the coward is far from the front lines of our war, still his fears waft over his cowering troops like a miasma of doom. His is the stench of failure and defeat. I inhale him and then expel him from me into the deepening night. 

But beyond the petty dictator’s decrepit odour, I can smell the scent of freedom. It comes from America. It is in the crisp winds of democracy, oxygenated by the money and weapons they send our way. It is in the crisp dollar bill smell of newly printed cash. It's in the hot-steel tang of bombs and missiles arriving daily—these are the enduring smells I inhale, that sustain me and keep alive our war with the Slavic invader from the north. 

Breathe with me my brothers and sisters! Inhale your future! Long live Ukraine. Long live the United States and NATO! Smell our victory at last!”

 

Cheers, Jake.😜

 

QUOTES: ROBINSON JEFFERS

 

“Know that however ugly the parts appear

The whole remains beautiful…

…the wholeness of life and things, the divine beauty

of the universe. Love that,

not man apart from that, or else you will share man’s pitiful confusions

or drown in despair when his days darken.”

—Robinson Jeffers