MAD versus NUTS and the spectacle of nuclear war

Jul 11, 2023 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Just a few days ago on July 7, the Department of Defense announced that “the final munition in the nation’s obsolete stockpile of chemical weapons has been safely destroyed — a disarmament milestone decades in the making” (US Department of Defense). On that very day in Kentucky, “… a joint-venture team led by Bechtel National, Inc. and Parsons Corporation, using neutralization and explosive destruction technologies … eliminate[d] more than 100,000 mustard agent and nerve agent-filled projectiles and nerve agent-filled rockets” (Ibid). On the same day, “sarin nerve agent-filled M55 rocket was destroyed … at the Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky” (Ibid). Under-Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Dr. William A. LaPlante was on point when he declared that “[w]e have a national security imperative and moral obligation to work toward eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.”

July 7 was a victory not only for humanity, but also for multilateralism. The US basically delivered on a Chemical Weapons Convention commitment it made in 1997 under President Clinton. Democrats generally are more in favor of multilateralism compared to Republicans, something with relevance for the war-fighting going on between Russia and Ukraine. That war has now entered a phase of grave danger beyond the theatre(s) of conflict due to another announcement by the US, namely, that Ukraine will now receive shipments of cluster bombs.

To proceed with the argument, we need to quickly review two strategic doctrines, both of them involving nuclear war. Let us start with MAD, which stand for Mutually Assured Destruction. MAD refers to a strategic situation of nuclear deterrence that emerged during the Cold War but that is still foundational to global military stability among the nuclear armed Great Powers. The basic idea is that a nuclear war is unwinnable because even if one country fires off long-range missiles with nuclear tipped warheads, the target country would be able to respond because of its “invulnerable capability”. The US and Russia both have Submarine Lauched Ballistic Missile (SLBMs) which are almost impossible to hit in ‘real time’. Underground systems also offer invulnerability. The country attacked first, can still unleash unacceptable damage to the “first-strike” aggressor.

It is important to note that while strategic deterrence is configured mostly around Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), Intermediate Range Ballistic Millies (IRBMs) and short-range missiles are also in the calculation, though mostly as triggers. Let me explain and tie in to the impending use cluster bomb by Ukraine against Russian forces. You should know that the US and Russia both have about 3800-4500 nuclear missiles, but that only a fractioned are aimed. The US has a Nuclear Triad, as does Russia, meaning that missiles could be launched from the ground (where they are kept in silos); from the air by B52 bombers; and by sea – the SLBMs. Around 400 ICBMs (Minuteman) missiles are always at ready. Many missiles are MIRVED – meaning a single ICBM can carry up to thirteen nuclear warheads. MIRV capability was one of the reasons President Reagan’s Strategic Defensive Initiative (Star Wars) programs failed.

Now, here is the situation the world is facing with cluster bombs. More than 100 countries have banned cluster bombs, and another hundred do not need to because they do not have access to any of these devices. All of the US European allies, plus Canada, Australia, and New Zeeland have banned cluster bombs. The official reason, and a perfectly good one, is that they pose immense dangers to civilians both during and after the war. Cluster bombs are smaller bomblets that ‘spray out’ from an airdropped device and explode in large clusters. However, it is quite normal for two percent or even more to be duds, that is they do not explode on impact. When civilians come into contact with them later, they get maimed or killed. This problem has caused widespread human and economic destruction in in Angola, Mozambique, Afghanistan, DRC, Vietnam, Somalia, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, among a long list of others. Many US allies are against cluster bombs for this reason.

There is, however, a more pressing matter. The fear is that by all reports, Ukraine is running out of conventional munitions, and its OFFENSIVE warfighting is severely compromised. Its current offensive push has stalled due to the formidable defensive lines set up by the Russians. Cluster bombs, if used, can go a far way in punching holes into Russian defenses.

The problem here is that the Russians are not likely to be sitting-ducks. It is not politically possible to be subjected to offensive cluster bomb attacks without a response that is commensurate. Now, President Puntin has repeatedly warned that if the military circumstances necessitate it, all option are on the table. The US knows this all too well which is why, in an act of pre-emption, it made the July 7^th announcement. Why – because one commensurate response is to retaliate with chemical ordinances.

Now for NUTS, which stands for Nuclear Utilization Theory. Back in the 1980s, some strategic thinkers floated a counter argument to MAD. For them, a theatre-specific nuclear war is winnable. It will be based on Tactical low-yield TNT devices Note also that President Trump had accepted NUTS. The danger here is twofold.

First, low-yield or small nuclear bombs give the impression that they are actually usable, and that the damage will be low-level. The truth is very far from this. In fact, “while low-yield nuclear bombs can range from .1 kilotons to 10, 20, or 50 kilotons, according to Joe Cirincione [of Ploughsrare Funds], the explosive yield from a low-yield nuclear weapon is equivalent to 1,000 MOABs. That is equivalent to the sizes of bombs dropped by the U.S. over Nagasaki and Hiroshima at the end of World War II” (R. Zipp, 2018).

Secondly, it is necessary to go back to Herman Kahn, an American physicist who developed a 62-step model to nuclear war. The USE of what is called ‘Tactical’ nuclear bombs is a sure trigger to step-level escalation toward the use of strategic devices. The though of thermonuclear weapons is simply unimaginable. The dangerous logic is cluster bombs; then tactical nuclear weapons, then total war.

The Russia-Ukraine war has now turned into something with far more dangerous than the economic fall-out that has plagued the world since February 2022. One can only hope that deterrence theory and practice will become the most robust ever, and that the imperatives of multilateralism will be fully asserted. MAD must prevail over NUTS.

Sincerely,

Dr. Randolph Persaud

---

• chemical, Dr. Randolph Persaud, munition, obsolete, spectacle

---