3 ms·
The conclusion of this article is almost breathtakingly naive. I was assigned to HQ US Air Forces Europe during the Able Archer exercise in November 1983, which
by hodgesrm 9y ago
The conclusion of this article is almost breathtakingly naive. I was assigned to HQ US Air Forces Europe during the Able Archer exercise in November 1983, which triggered mobilization of Soviet nuclear forces. I've been thinking about that experience for most of my life. Here are a few points from long reflection.
1.) Any system that continuously depends on single individuals to make the right decision to avoid catastrophe is defective by design. In the Able Archer case our boss Leonard Perroots made an instinctive decision to stand down that prevented the escalation from going further. [0]
2.) The US and Russia had disciplined command and control systems plus relatively stable political leadership. That won't always be the case; in the case of the US it's arguably not the case now.
3.) During most of the Cold War there were two main actors with nuclear weapons. There are now at least 9. [1] If instability in the US breaks trust in the nuclear umbrella I would expect that number to increase rapidly. Even the US/NK standoff is a multi-polar problem, something that seems to have escaped most US-based commentators.
To sum up the reason we have not seen use of weapons to-date is we've been incredibly lucky. Given the known miscalculations in the incidents to date that's unlikely to last.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/us/leonard-perroots-dead.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/us/leonard-perroots-dead....
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-nine-countries-that-have-nuclear-weapons-a6798756.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-nine-co...
- jacquesm 9y ago> To sum up the reason we have not seen use of weapons to-date is we've been incredibly lucky. That, imo is the only correct conclusion. Anybody that wants to sell mutually assured destruction as a long term solution is missing the point that in the long term your luck will some day run out. That, besides obvious de-railings of the principle due to a lack of mental stability in leadership.
- asdfologist 9y agoI don't understand your point #2. Our president has reassured us that he is a stable genius.
- trumpsamerica 9y agoDo you have any arguments about 2 except the hair color and surname? Also try not to give me things that cnn has told you you should be outraged about
- jcranmer 9y ago> 3.) During most of the Cold War there were two main actors with nuclear weapons. There are now at least 9. [1] If instability in the US breaks trust in the nuclear umbrella I would expect that number to increase rapidly. Even the US/NK standoff is a multi-polar problem, something that seems to have escaped most US-based commentators. The UK developed nuclear weapons in 1952, France in 1960, and China in 1964. At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis (the height of the Cold War), there were 4 nuclear weapons states.
- nickelcitymario 9y agoI think the key word was "main actors". The UK, France, and China were not main actors in the Cold War, unless I'm terribly mistaken.
- jcranmer 9y agoIf the UK, France, and China were not main actors in the Cold War, then why are they, along with Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea, main actors in the modern world? The UK and France haven't exactly been getting more important in the past 50 years in global affairs.
- hodgesrm 9y agoThe other arsenals were pretty small and the confrontations that I'm aware of were between the US and USSR. The Soviet response to Able Archer was triggered in part by paranoia about US Pershing II missile deployments, which were in progress around that time. NATO nuclear policy was almost entirely a US game as far as I know.
- jcranmer 9y agoI'm arguing less against the fact that the US and USSR drove the nuclear MAD in the Cold War than the fact that you cite the number of important nuclear powers as going from 2 to 9. In terms of modern countries, the US and Russia are the only countries with significant stockpiles. UK and France have reduced their stockpiles from the Cold War (so if they were insignificant then, they're even more so now). The other 5 countries have increased or maintained stockpiles, but only China reaches British/French levels. India, Pakistan, and Israel have even fewer and are only sufficient to effect war on a small scale against specific rivals. North Korea's nukes are incapable of doing anything more than seriously pissing off the entire world (arguably, their ability to shell Seoul is more effective deterrent than their nukes).
- thom 9y agoWhile I think luck plays a major part, in almost all cases the consequences of a retaliation set quite a high bar for the evidence from warning systems to pass. In the case of shooting down spy planes, that bar is lower. In the case of arresting a foreign national on suspicion of espionage, it's lower still. If armageddon wasn't on the table, many of the individuals involved in these close calls might have acted differently. So I agree we've been lucky, but I think we should acknowledge that mutually assured destruction has at least loaded the dice.
- jacquesm 9y ago> but I think we should acknowledge that mutually assured destruction has at least loaded the dice. Even loaded dice come up '1' every now and then. So that's just a means of staying in the game a little longer, it will not ensure a long term outcome.
- thom 9y agoYup, totally agree with that. I personally don't see how disarmament can ever happen though, so I choose to think of it as a chronic problem like the threat of an asteroid strike, and just hug my kids a little harder.