Western Missiles in Russia
NATO on Notice: The Nuclear Threshold
Russia has consistently outlined thresholds for nuclear weapons use, though its rhetoric has softened over the years. Recent events, however, suggest that firing Western-supplied missiles into Russian territory crosses a significant line. This could provoke a nuclear "warning shot," assuming Russia's nuclear arsenal is functional (a possible but unconfirmed variable), or it could lead to a dangerous standoff reminiscent of a high-stakes game of "nuclear chicken."
As I discussed in my September 2024 post (NATO-Russia: Enough Already), the possibility of nuclear weapons being used was not hypothetical—it was a looming threat as tensions escalated. Now, those risks have become even more palpable.
Speculation includes the possibility of Russia detonating a nuclear device over water as a demonstration of resolve without immediate mass casualties. This scenario aligns with their long-standing strategy to maintain nuclear credibility while avoiding full-scale war.
NATO’s strategy of incremental involvement—often termed "creeping commitment"—has culminated in a scenario where Russia faces three bleak options: escalate to nuclear weapons, endure progressive military attrition, or capitulate to a NATO-backed Ukraine. Each choice risks severe consequences.
If Russia resorts to using a nuclear weapon beyond a demonstrative act, it could trigger direct U.S. retaliation, escalating into the nightmare of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Even a limited exchange risks spiraling into uncontrollable devastation. What would Russia gain from launching a single nuke at the U.S., knowing the response would likely obliterate them? The MAD doctrine suggests both sides are primed to retaliate in a way that leaves no winner.
The situation reflects a failure of diplomacy and leadership. If rational decision-making were truly at the forefront, we would not be approaching this brink. The hope remains that saner heads prevail, but the current trajectory makes that hope increasingly tenuous.
Comments