Launch Ain’t a Mid-Day Meal

"If Russia obtains reliable information that the United States

has finished developing these systems and started to produce them,

 Russia will have no option other than to engage in a full-scale

effort to develop similar missiles." Vladimir Putin, August 5^th

Looking at the above chart, prepared by the BBC based on US sources, it doesn’t exactly make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It’s not as if the notion of “mutually assured destruction” has completely left the building, but the existence of both limited-capacity nuclear warheads (tactical battle-field range) and strategic (the big one) just might make the playing field more dangerous. Ballistic missiles can deliver massive payloads over very long distances. Some of those missiles are in hard silos, some on mobile platforms and others carried on submarines.

The notion that a limited, targeted nuclear strike might not result in a full-fledged strategic response, could cause a nation or a military commander to deploy that “lesser” weapon. But the recipient of that “lesser” weapon might simply view the assault as a nuclear attack and respond with the bigger weapon. And remember, from the time there is an awareness of a nuclear attack, the defenders have ten minutes to decide how to respond and to warn civilians. Once a major strike is launched, the missiles are locked and gone. Boom!

There was – I repeat “was” – an arm’s limitation treaty between the United States and Russia. As of August 2^nd, there isn’t. “Last year the Americans said they had evidence that the new Russian cruise missiles fall within the range banned by the treaty… Accusations about the 9M729 missiles - known to Nato as SSC-8 - were then put to Washington's Nato allies, which all backed the US claim… In February, President Donald Trump set the 2 August deadline for the US to withdraw from the pact if Russia didn't come into compliance…

“Russian President Vladimir Putin suspended his country's own obligations to the treaty shortly afterwards… ‘Russia is solely responsible for the treaty's demise,’ Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement on Friday [8/2]… ‘With the full support of our Nato allies, the United States has determined Russia to be in material breach of the treaty, and has subsequently suspended our obligations under the treaty,’ he added… Russia's foreign ministry confirmed the INF treaty had been terminated ‘at the initiative of the US,’ in a statement carried by the official Ria news agency.” BBC.com, August 2^nd.

What is that 9M729/SSC-8 missile? It’s the one Vladimir Putin has bragged rather openly about that is so much faster than the speed of sound that he claims no defense system is fast enough to destroy. Some say, we should have negotiated before we terminated. It’s not really clear it would have made much difference, and it does not appear as if the United States has a comparable missile system to trade off against. But is Russia the big concern?

Look and India and Pakistan, battling over Kashmir, facing nasty exchanges between border forces and even through out-and-out terrorism. India still claims Pakistan stood behind the 2008 massive assault in against mostly tourist targets in Mumbai by Islamists from Pakistan: “By the time the standoff ended at the Nariman House on the evening of November 28, six hostages as well as two gunmen had been killed. At the two hotels, dozens of guests and staff were either trapped by gunfire or held hostage. Indian security forces ended the siege at the Oberoi Trident around midday on November 28 and at the Taj Mahal Palace on the morning of the following day. In all, at least 174 people, including 20 security force personnel and 26 foreign nationals, were killed. More than 300 people were injured. Nine of the 10 terrorists were killed, and one was arrested.” Encyclopedia Britannica. How much would it take for either nation to have launched a nuclear response?

Or the threats from Donald Trump’s buddy, Kim Jong-Un, who always resumes testing when the denuclearization talks with the United States stall, which they always do. Or perhaps Iran, slowly unraveling their obligations under the UN six-party nuclear containment accord since the United States withdrew, will finally have nuclear weapon. And one day, as Trump baits Tehran and moves our Naval fleet closer, perhaps Iran will show the United states exactly what it will have or perhaps already has developed. Or Pakistan, once having shared its nuclear secrets with North Korea, makes another sinister deal with Iran or some terrorist group one of its generals secretly supports?

In a world of chemical and biological weapons – Syria seems to be Russia’s testing ground by assisting the Assad regime against its own people – you would think that there are sufficient alternatives to nuclear weapons. But one well-placed nuke, smuggled in or launched, can do so much damage, can kill hundreds of thousands (millions) of people, that the temptation to use one just might be great to ignore. We don’t need bully tactics, go-it-alone politics, bi-lateral agreement (vs multiparty accords) and openly threatening and hostile statements from our president. Prepared for attack, we need to rebuilt our thoroughly demoralized diplomatic corps, resurrect our standing foreign aid, join forces with countries that used to be our allies and stop saber-rattling and baiting enemies with serious military might.

              I’m Peter Dekom, and wouldn’t be grand if we did not have a government begging our enemies to attack while shoving our allies out the door?