This is not a “take shelter threat alert,” but there has been a significant step towards nuclear war taken by Russia that very likely increases the likelihood of battlefield, tactical nuclear weapons use in Europe, that could potentially escalate to a strategic nuclear exchanges between the U.S. and Russia.
The Russian Ministry of Defense just announced that it is increasing the readiness of its nuclear forces and will be holding exercises to test their ability to deploy tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons. Blaming “provocative statements and threats made by certain Western officials against the Russian Federation” the exercises are a first by Russia that specifically mention exercises with battlefield use of nuclear weapons. This is tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy enemy forces on the battlefield as opposed to “strategic” nuclear strikes on an enemy homeland and cities to kill civilians and punish or retaliate. The Ukraine was not mentioned as the provocation, but “threats from France, Britain and the United States regarding the Russian Federation”. More disturbing was that the delivery of long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to Ukraine by the United States was blamedas a provocation. ATACMS is a conventional, not a nuclear system, but the Russian Ministry of Defense statement appears to threaten use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine if long range conventional attacks using this U.S. system are made against Russia. The Russian Foreign Ministry joined in warnings of “further escalation of the Ukrainian crisis towards an open military clash between NATO countries and Russia.” With the French President insisting that he does not rule out sending military personnel to Ukraine, Russia appears to be feeling more threatened, and the risk of escalation to nuclear weapons and expansion of a nuclear exchange into Europe may be rising. British Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron said that Ukraine may use the long-range weaponry given by the UK to strike targets within Russia, a statement that angered Moscow. Russian spokesmen said they will retaliate against British targets in Ukraine “or elsewhere” if Ukraine uses UK missiles to strike Russia. If Russia attacks a NATO country, especially with nuclear weapons, the U.S. would be under immense pressure to exercise its promise of “extended nuclear deterrence” and a “nuclear umbrella” to defend our non-nuclear NATO allies. Failure to do so would pressure Germany and other countries to develop and field their own nuclear weapons. The risk of escalation and nuclear weapons use in the Ukraine is increasing. With Ukraine in crisis from declining support and battlefield losses, there is a real chance that they may execute a major attack on Russian soil that does lead to nuclear escalation, hoping to draw NATO directly into their conflict. The U.S. abandoned Army nuclear battlefield nuclear weapons capability decades ago. In 1991, POTUS George H.W. Bush ordered the removal of all Army tactical nuclear forces after the fall of the Soviet Union with claims of a “peace dividend.” It was also a move to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war and score political points. Russia and China did not follow suit—they maintained and have continued to modernize their battlefield nuclear weapons. U.S. troops are largely untrained and unprepared for battlefield nuclear combat, and have no short range, rapidly responsive nuclear weapons vital for successful battlefield nuclear combat. An upcoming exercise simulation in the Collapse Survivor App deals with battlefield nuclear weapons use in a Pakistan-India war that does yield military success to the side that is trained and prepared for tactical nuclear combat—and without escalation to strategic nuclear strikes on cities that neither side wants. Because the U.S. and NATO have few and poor battlefield nuclear weapons and do not train on tactical nuclear combat, NATO doctrine is to refuse limited nuclear war and threaten to escalate to use of strategic nuclear weapons. It is politically “incorrect” to even consider limited battlefield use of nuclear weapons in the U.S., and in NATO.[1] The Europeans want any use of nuclear weapons in Europe to result in immediate escalation to strategic nuclear exchanges between Russia and the U.S., sparing them from nuclear strikes. Of course, it is not in the interests of the U.S. to have such escalation—so the threat of escalation is not credible, unlikely to deter Russia, and certainly would not prevent major NATO battlefield losses. With NATO nations increasingly providing advanced long-range conventional weapons to Ukraine there should be no surprise when Russia escalates to battlefield use of tactical nuclear weapons to defeat Ukraine and their NATO-provided conventional weapons. Ukrainian troops are completely unprepared for tactical nuclear combat, as are NATO troops. Russia’s warnings that Russian nuclear weapons could strike the territory of NATO countries supporting Ukraine should also be given great credence. The NATO Alliance also needs to rethink its refusal to acknowledge limited nuclear war and dangerous policy of refusing to prepare for tactical nuclear combat. Dr. Drew Miller, Col USAF (Ret) wrote his PhD Dissertation at Harvard University on “Underground Nuclear Defense Shelters and Field Fortifications for NATO Troops.” He served in the U.S. Strategic Air Command and later U.S. Strategic Command.