The U.S. Should Show It Can Win a Nuclear War

Source: Wall Street Journal.

Just the title of WSJ’s article conveys an extraordinary level of recklessness. But it gets worse in the body where the author recommends arming U.S. naval forces with “tactical nuclear weapons,” and getting ready to attack a Russian nuclear submarine.

I take it WSJ’s article is just an information war salvo. No serious warfighter — even in Russia — considers an escalation to nuclear war to be a viable option in the context of the Ukraine conflict. Russia doesn’t need to nuke Ukraine because Russia is winning militarily; Ukraine/NATO can’t nuke Russia because the risk of nuclear retaliation is too great.

I’m told that detonating just 400 of today’s nuclear bombs would kill every living thing on Earth, including coronavirus. Globally, there are more than 12,000 nuclear bombs to detonate.

Either WSJ has gone insane with this piece, or else in its way it is trying to show that WE have. Dear God preserve our precious bodily fluids.

12 thoughts on “The U.S. Should Show It Can Win a Nuclear War

    1. Though the Pilot (what’s left of it) doesn’t seem to publish anything I send, here is a short op-ed I submitted on the subject:

      As a resident of Norfolk I feel I must take issue with the editorial by our Mayor Kenneth Alexander in praise of NATO and our NATO-fest. There was a time when this event, called the Azalea Festival, celebrated the Azaleas that beautify our city. NATO is a military bloc founded for the specific purpose of countering the expansion of Soviet influence. That came to also mean activation to suppress the success of socialist parties in member states, ie “Operation Gladio.” Decades after the collapse of the USSR, NATO has outlived its mission.

      At this moment, we find ourselves reliving the cold-war terror of imminent nuclear annihilation. Norfolk, as host to NATO and the largest Naval base sits at ground zero. This is hardly representative of resilience.

      The horror in Ukraine is largely a result of 8 years of U.S. meddling and of efforts to expand NATO, along with military weapons, to Russia’s border in direct conflict with previous agreements and warnings. No country including ours would allow this. Though this does not and cannot justify Russia’s monstrous actions and mass murder of civilians in Ukraine, our further military involvement may quickly escalate to global nuclear annihilation. Any country engaging in military aggression against another should indeed suffer the world’s condemnation. All conflicts are eventually ended by diplomacy but the strongest diplomacy and punishments must also include the possibility of benefits. The carrot of benefits must exist for the punishment of the stick is to be effective. As for Ukraine, we should be sending humanitarian aid, not weapons which will only prolong the death and suffering.

      War and its expansion are crimes not only against humanity but, at this historic juncture due to environmental impacts. against life on earth. Obsolete military blocs like NATO endanger world peace and do our city no favors by their presence. Rather than being celebrated, NATO needs to be abolished and replaced by international agreements which ensure security to all nations and which foster the global cooperation on shared existential issues upon which our survival as a species over the coming decades depend.

      Let our beautiful city stand for peace and for a livable future. Let us take back our spring festival and again celebrate Azaleas and not militarism and war.

      As an aside, while I generally avoid this echo chamber, I post regularly on the New York Times as Al M.


      1. I agree NATO is obsolete, though for different reasons.

        When I was a kid, We had a bully in our neighborhood. He wasn’t so tough, I could have bested him, but I couldn’t defeat his big brother, who would always back him up.

        European countries similarly depend on us to back then up, and are more provocative than they otherwise would be on their own.

        And, of course, they underspend on their own defense because they rely on us to protect them, putting them at an economic advantage.

        In any case, welcome back.


        1. …”they underspend on their own defense because they rely on us to protect them, putting them at an economic advantage.”

          Good explanation as to why we can’t have nice things like Universal Health Care or Universal Child Care. Like THOSE countries have.


          1. Straws officially grasped.

            You completely missed the point that we could have those things, too; if the MIC and the hawks (both sides) didn’t feel it necessary to keep defense industry jobs in their districts.


        2. “European countries similarly depend on us to back then up, and are more provocative than they otherwise would be on their own.”

          That is the conventional wisdom, but is it true? It is not obvious to me that it is. Is what WE spend the right amount, or do we spend way too much?

          Leaving that question aside, i you deduct from our military spending the huge amounts we spend in areas that have nothing to do with defending the North Atlantic it is not obvious that we are propping anybody up. Even strategically. Both France and UK maintain expensive nuclear deterrents that would make any aggressor think twice about attacking even if we were not in the picture at all.

          If you have an example of any European countries behaving in a “provocative” way, then please share.


      2. NATO is far from obsolete, although the geopolitical order it serves may well be.

        NATO is primarily a technical organization. Its main function is to coordinate and standardize military capabilities among the member nations so that — for example — radio and computer operators can communicate with one another. This is necessary work, made so by the mere existence of military organizations.

        On the other hand, geopolitical realities have changed dramatically since NATO was created in 1949. For one thing, it is no longer clear that US-led coalitions represent a controlling force in world affairs, either militarily or economically.

        Instead of contemplating nuclear war, we need to learn new ways to operate as a superpower.


      3. Hello, Al.

        Look at the bright side: if we are ground zero, which we are certainly among the top targets, then our suffering will be minimal for those near the bases.

        Liked by 2 people

  1. I disagree with your assessment that this article is reckless.

    It deals with a very serious question – how do you deter a madman and especially one whose health may be failing? The answer lies in deterring the people who would be tasked with carrying out the madman’s instructions. They must be made fully aware of the capabilities and resolve that would be brought to bear should orders for a nuclear strike be followed.

    Putin’s criminal folly has brought us back to MAD but that, realistically, is where we are.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Did a little digging concerning the author of the piece. He, and several of the directors and fellows at his Yorktown Institute, are “children” of the Reagan-era policies that helped end the Cold War.

    This piece seems to be a reflection of his (their) work in the 80’s. I don’t necessarily agree with the assertion that it is an info wars piece. Just an opinion of a guy who, strategically speaking, is stuck in the 80’s.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s