This Isn’t Your Grandfather’s Nuclear Confrontation
The Second World War came to an abrupt and decisive end when the United States detonated twin nuclear bombs over the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thus, the world’s most costly conflict ended, while at the same time, the “Nuclear era” began.
For the next 79 years, the world had existed in an uneasy truce. It was a time when the two principal nuclear superpowers, the United States and, initially, the Soviet Union, now the Russian Federation, faced each other with the weapons of global annihilation.
In the past two years, that face-off has become even more belligerent, as the war in Ukraine has brought these two super-powers to the brink of direct, and likely nuclear, confrontation.
While each country possesses tremendous inventories of these deadly weapons and therefore represents roughly equivalent adversaries, the way they’ve reached this position of military dominance is very different. This has led each country’s leaders to adopt very different strategies and defenses, strategies and defenses that are liable to make profound differences in the survival of their respective countries and populations.
For the first two centuries of its existence, “Fortress America,” as it became known, enjoyed the defense of its two oceans, the Atlantic and Pacific. It was not feasible for a significant power to attack the United States across these great seas. The lone exception might be the attack on September 11, 2001, on the twin towers in New York City. But, by God’s Grace, this nation has never had a direct attack by a major military power upon its shores.
American leaders have relied upon this physical isolation as a key element in our national defense. Combined with America’s technological prowess, a complete picture emerges of the US Strategy for World War III.
However, the Russian experience in the war was the polar opposite of the American experience. While American losses during WWII were substantial, 418,500 soldiers were killed, and few, if any, civilian casualties were reported, as all of the fighting took place far from US shores. Russia, on the other hand, suffered devastating death and destruction. Major battles took place on Russian soil, with an estimated 8.6 million soldiers killed, but another 7 million civilians died. The trauma to the Russian psyche was profound and lasting. These differences between the two strategic foes can be readily seen in the two countries' National Defense Strategies.
On October 12, 2022, President Biden sent his most recent National Security Strategy to Congress. While much of the document was classified and unavailable to the public, a basic fact sheet was distributed via the Internet. Combined with the previously released National Defense and Military Strategies, it presents an excellent overall review of our country’s policies on Defense.
If these policy statements could be summed up in one word, it would be: “Deterrence.” America promises to oppose all future conflicts, by deterring any potential opponent. This deterrence will consist of the following:
Investing in the sources of our “national strength.”
Mobilization the “broadest coalitions of nations.”
Shaping the “rules of the road in the 21st Century.”
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1183514.pdf
Generally, America will pursue these goals and objectives by adhering to the latest Start Treaty. In the most recent report (the Treaty requires a biannual update on the number of nuclear weapons), the United States reported slightly more than 2,800 weapons in inventory, while Russia reported a similar number of weapons in its stockpile.
For America, the workhorse of their deterrence has been the Minute Man series of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). Developed in the 1950s and first used in 1962, the Minute Men have seen substantial upgrades in fuel and longevity. The newer versions of solid-fuel-powered Minute Men can stand ready to fire for much longer periods than the old liquid-fuel rockets.
However, reading between the lines, it becomes apparent that these weapons are not America’s primary future deterrence. By inclination and technology, America has put most of its development toward missile defense. The Patriot Anti Air Systems being the top-off-the-line US deterrent. A careful review of America’s recent military operations shows a preference for these Anti-Missile Systems over confrontation.
Russia, on the other hand, also presents some very capable Anti-Missile systems, with its top-of-the-line S-400 standing as a defender of its most vulnerable assets. Unlike the United States, Russia has focused most of its offensive missile technology development efforts.
Russia has achieved a real breakthrough in its development and production of hypersonic Missiles, Missiles that can travel faster than Mach 5 (5 times the speed of sound). It has been reported that Russia’s premier hypersonic missile, the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, can reach a speed of Mach 10, which is by far the fastest missile in the world. And an extremely difficult target for any Anti-Missile System to intercept.
All of this was put on display just a couple of weeks ago when, on April 13th, Iran launched a massive attack aimed at Israel. It is estimated that nearly three hundred drones and various missiles were fired. Of these many were decoys, slow moving drones which took hours to reach Israeli territory.
Israel activated its Iron Dome air defense in response, while the US, Britain, France, and Jordan also activated anti-air systems. At the height of this battle, reports indicate that the US had 152 aircraft in the air.
The American Press reports that this phalanx of defenders shot down nearly all of the Iranian targets. That’s no doubt true, as many of those slower drones were likely decoys. However, days after the battle was complete, there are recurring estimates that 8 to 14 of these more sophisticated high-speed Iranian missiles did get through the shield, perhaps an indication of the lethality of these new-generation missile systems.
In the end, what we were looking at in Iran’s assault on Israel was the first real-world test of the two different approaches to strategic defense in this modern nuclear age. Although the language may sound the same, nuclear confrontation and strategic deterrence, today’s technology is radically different. Attacks that took hours and minutes to unfold in the past now occur in seconds. Entire battles will likely be completed within an hour. Cities, towns, and nations can be obliterated in the blink of an eye. The illusion of “Fortress America” is just that, an illusion.
Today, no nation is safe from the ravishing effects of war. Civilian populations, no less than military, are at risk. Russia’s history of nearly the same number of civilian and military casualties will be the case in any future nuclear war. In 1959, candidate for President John F. Kennedy warned of a “missile gap” between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Back then, with technology roughly equal between the two global powers, Kennedy asserted that the USSR had more missiles than the US. Today, there is a very real possibility that the two technologies are NOT equal. This new hypersonic missile technology, exhibited both by Iran and Russian forces fighting in Ukraine, is a real game changer.
This is no time for an American president to push for heightened hostilities between our two countries constantly. It is, however, an ideal time to negotiate and seek common ground.
Follow me here on Medium for more stories from the ValueSide.
