Nuclear Confrontation: A High-Stakes Conversation
Nuclear confrontation is a form of communication, a language spoken between nations with varying degrees of subtlety. This dialogue has been ongoing since the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 and the Soviet Union responded with its own nuclear test four years later. The exchanges involve tests, bans on tests, arms agreements, embargoes, clandestine and nonclandestine technology transfers, and the occasional grand speech. All parties understand the fearsome price of miscommunication.
At the top of the nuclear war spiral stand deterrents, while at the bottom lies all-out war. The descent into nuclear conflict is shaped by grave uncertainties, including how well opponents understand each other and themselves. The threat posed is immediate and real, requiring humanity to communicate clearly and sustain that communication indefinitely while understanding how readily it can be misunderstood.
Distrust is a significant concern, as nations focus on fallback communications essential to de-escalation, an art that has been neglected and is now in danger of foundering. The two great nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, have historically invested in warning systems and retaliatory capabilities, but current leaders seem to have forgotten the lessons of the past.
China, having traditionally maintained a small retaliatory arsenal, is now rapidly expanding its nuclear capabilities. The global arsenal has grown from 12,000 warheads to around 70,000 since the height of the Cold War. The emphasis has shifted to smaller, more precise nuclear weapons designed to limit radioactive fallout and civilian casualties.
A critical challenge today is not preventing surprise attacks but controlling escalation during plain sight. This involves deterring adversaries and controlling their actions to prevent all-out war. A notable model of this is an ultra-secret 1983 Pentagon war game called Proud Prophet, which simulated an unscripted nuclear test.
The game’s strength was its unscripted nature, allowing it to explore the possibility of nuclear war without being constrained by conventional thinking. The simulation played out to its natural conclusion: global devastation. This shocking conclusion led to the realization that nuclear war cannot be controlled, and that lesson has had a profound impact on American strategy and global strategies.
However, some experts believe that nuclear war is still a remote possibility. Bruce Blair, a nuclear critic and advocate for disarmament, has highlighted the distinction between deterrence and warfighting. He argues that a warfighting strategy is not feasible and that a credible threat of nuclear retaliation is essential to avoiding war.
Paul Bracken, a renowned nuclear expert, has emphasized the danger of underestimating the complexity of nuclear conflict and the need for continued preparation and vigilance. He has also warned that relying on technology and machinery will not guarantee success in managing nuclear escalation.
Historically, deterrence has failed, and countries have inadvertently maneuvered themselves into positions where they have no choice but to engage in self-destructive wars. Currently, nuclear arms control is an open question, nonproliferation has failed, and the world is facing a crisis where nuclear war seems possible and even probable.
While experts like Bracken argue that the current path of nuclear modernization is necessary but misguided, it appears that the world is barreling towards nuclear disaster without any signs of slowing down. As one expert stated, “Sometimes the only way to deal with the transcendental madness of nuclear war is with humor,” but Paul Bracken is not laughing – he is warning of a potential catastrophe that could unfold without warning.