Politico on May 16 published an op-ed headlined “3 Scenarios for How Putin Could Actually Use Nukes,” which is explicitly designed to get Americans to “think the unthinkable,” and calmly debate out the merits of using tactical nuclear weapons – all by ascribing to Russia the intention to do so. (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/16/scenarios-putin-nukes-00032505)
Authors Gregg Herken, Avner Cohen and George M. Moore are arms experts, the last two from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California. They write:
“While any use of a nuclear weapon is unthinkable to most of the world, under current Russian military doctrine—usually described in shorthand as `escalate to deescalate’—Putin could choose a nuclear `demonstration’ as a warning to halt further American military aid to the Ukrainians. In other words, for the Russian leader, detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon by Russia is entirely thinkable. And so the West needs to do some thinking, too.”
The article then casually discusses the three possibilities. “Scenario 1: Remote atmospheric test … by detonating a low-yield nuclear warhead high above Novaya Zemlya, the old Soviet test site in the Arctic, for example. While both the actual damage on the ground and radioactive fallout would be negligible, the psychological effect could be enormous: It would be the first nuclear explosion by a superpower since nuclear testing ended in 1992.”
“Scenario 2: Atmospheric detonation above Ukraine.… (An) explosion above Kyiv would not only be visually spectacular but would likely plunge the capital into prolonged darkness and silence by shorting out computers, cellphones and other electronics. EMP effects might also extend into NATO member countries. But the extent of damage from the pulse is unpredictable, and Russian communications could also be affected.”
“Scenario 3: Ground explosion in Ukraine…. Most dangerous—and, for that reason, perhaps least likely.”
With the stage set for the discussion, the authors report that, “while none of the above scenarios is currently likely, neither are they far-fetched,” and so we should get used to discussing them. The authors then demonstrate how reasonable they are about all of this, displaying all due caution: “It’s our view that if Putin fires a nuclear warning shot in the Ukraine war, President Joe Biden should resist pressure to respond in kind and avoid any options that could lead to an escalating nuclear exchange. Instead, the President should rally the nations of the world in a universal condemnation of Putin for breaking the nuclear taboo and taking the most dangerous first step toward a nuclear war. The U.S. and NATO could also respond by use of non-kinetic means like cyber warfare.”
