On paper there are a lot of nuclear weapons out there. Is Russia willing to risk their nukes actually work?
There are still a lot of nukes out there:
In 2022, Russia deployed an additional 86 nuclear warheads, bringing its total to 1,674. The U.S. added 26 – a reversal of its longstanding downward trend – giving it a total of 1,770 deployed warheads. However, China is trying to catch up. Its nuclear arsenal grew to 410 from 350 last year, and according to SIPRI, it may catch up with the Russians and Americans by the end of the decade.
But much fewer than in the past, and Russia and America are committed to avoiding nuclear confrontation--notwithstanding Russia's frequent bluster that relies on beating their nuclear chest and flinging nuclear poo--Friedman says. Since America and Russia have 90% of the warheads, that's good.
Putin also suggested Russia’s large number of nuclear weapons would "guarantee" its security – noting that Russia had more such weapons than NATO countries.
Further, Russia says those few, small nukes can do a lot:
President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that his deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus, something he confirmed for the first time had already happened, was a reminder to the West that it could not inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.
Given Russia's nuclear boasts, a small number of tactical nukes in Belarus are pointless, no? Isn't preventing strategic defeat what strategic nukes are for?
The U.S. isn't exactly publicly sweating over the Belarus ploy:
Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Friday said the Biden administration is closely monitoring Russia’s claims that it’s stored a tactical nuclear weapon in Belarus, but Washington has “no reason to adjust” its own nuclear posture.
Keep in mind that Russia has a history of outrageous nuclear bluff. So I ask again, do any of Russia's nukes work?
Some surely do. They're too important for Russian security for that not to be true. Does Russia
know which are the good ones? Do we? Perhaps the only nuclear weapons Russia trusts are the simpler tactical
nuclear weapons. But it's a risk for Russia to put some of its few
working nukes outside of Russia, no?
Sometimes I think Russia really is
afraid of our thin missile defense system but doesn't dare admit why.
And America doesn't call Russia's nuclear bluff because we'd rather not rub Russia's nose in this and because we want China to believe
Russia has plenty of nukes to protect its Far East.
As for Belarus, what are they thinking? Having nukes makes Belarus a target for Western nukes in a nuclear clash. I have to wonder if Lukashenko knows the nukes in Belarus don't work so aren't a risk. Which actually makes sense given that I wonder why Russia would risk giving Belarus a small nuclear deterrent force that tempts Belarus to break free of the Anschluss.
But who knows? Maybe Putin's nuclear theater is directed at his own people. If Russia is compelled to retreat from Ukraine because he doesn't really want a long war, could Putin argue that the damage inflicted on NATO and it's Ukraine proxy allows Russia to declare "mission accomplished" and return home the real victors of the war:
If Putin can't afford to end the war against Ukraine without victory, he can simply claim victory by saying Russia's glorious military under Putin's leadership made Ukraine a desert by battering Ukraine into perpetual weakness and emptied NATO's armories of weapons and ammunition.
The fact that NATO doesn't invade Russia after Russian troops pull out of Ukrainian territory will be cited as proof of success. Never mind that NATO has no desire to do that.
Add in a display in Belarus of Russia's mighty nuclear arsenal and the argument is complete.
It's not like I don't worry about Russian nukes. The risks of even a dozen striking American cities is surely a deterrent to strategic defeat of Russia that threatens Russia's territorial integrity. So America isn't going to exploit a potential Russian defeat in Ukraine by organizing and supporting a drive on Moscow. Even if America wanted to--which we don't because we'd rather not have Russia fall victim to China by losing control of important territory, and strengthening China--we could not because of the nukes. Even if almost all don't work.
Anyway, enjoy your nuclear theater. I don't think Russia would readily risk exposing its nukes as inert mass-times-acceleration kinetic weapons because they won't risk their territorial integrity with at best a nuclear roulette threat. And at worst, a complete bluff.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 continues here.
