Playing Nuclear Chicken … Getting One’s Head Nuked! By James Reed

The American Conservative.com has made the case that we should take Putin’s claims to use nukes if necessary, underspecified conditions, very seriously. It debunks the idea that Russian technology is somehow flawed, a dangerous myth to find out in reality, as there is no walking back from it. But, I have seen these dismissal claims at many sites, Left and right. We cannot predict how this will go, but, as said below, at present a game of nuclear chicken is being played, as young punks in the 1950s did with their cars, only cars have been replaced by nukes. I do not hold to the idea that the elites are of infinite intelligence and never make mistakes. If that is so, they have us beat; no, to that I say! No, mistakes can be made, and there is randomness in the universe, and black swan events as science shows.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/nuclear-chicken-with-the-kremlin/

“There was a phenomenon especially prominent during the 1950s in which teenage males with a surplus of testosterone would play a game called “automobile chicken.” Two drivers on a deserted road, with friends and classmates watching and cheering, would send their cars hurtling toward each other at high speed. The assumption was that one of the drivers would swerve at the last moment, thereby avoiding a catastrophic collision, but that person would then be derided for being “chicken.” This perverted expression of masculinity was immortalized in James Dean’s iconic movie Rebel Without a Cause.

The popularity of automobile chicken faded quickly as too often neither driver would swerve, producing fatal head-on collisions. Unfortunately, Russian and U.S. leaders are now playing a game of nuclear chicken regarding Ukraine, and the consequences could be similarly fatal for both countries. The key difference is that a miscalculation would cause not one or two deaths, but millions.

Russian officials have signaled on multiple occasions that while the Kremlin has no current plans to use even small, tactical nuclear weapons to end the military stalemate in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin’s government reserves the right to use nukes if Russia’s independence or territorial integrity is threatened. Putin has indicated on multiple occasions that the nuclear option remains intact to respond to such “existential threats.” Most recently, Putin stated in a September 21 speech that his “country also has various means of destruction, and for separate components and more modern than those of NATO countries, and when the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal." He emphasized that his warning “was not a bluff.”

Joe Biden’s administration needs to take those signals seriously. But instead of backing away from its policy of supplying Ukraine with increasingly powerful weapons, Washington is doubling down on that approach despite Moscow’s rising anger. Worse, administration officials reportedly have sent “back channel” warnings to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would lead to “grave consequences,” suggesting a NATO military response. The conditions are now in place for a full-fledged game of nuclear chicken.

One might think that Biden’s policy team and its supporters in the foreign-policy blob would take Moscow’s latest warnings quite seriously and adopt a more cautious, prudent policy. But these are many of the same people who dismissed or even scorned Putin’s repeated statements since at least 2008 indicating that attempts to make Ukraine a NATO member or even an informal military asset would cross a “red line” and would not be tolerated. Hawks in the United States and Europe were astonishingly confident that Putin was bluffing. Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine demonstrated conclusively that he was not.

One faction of hawks still insists that Moscow is bluffing when it warns it will consider the nuclear option if the Western threat grows sufficiently grave. Such individuals have apparently learned nothing from their previous miscalculation.  Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, contends that warnings from Putin about using nuclear weapons in response to mounting Western military assistance to Kiev should be ignored. “The threat of escalation is cheap talk,” McFaul states confidently. “Putin is bluffing.” Other hawks urge the Biden administration not to give in to Russia’s “nuclear blackmail.” They seem oblivious to the probable consequences if their predictions are wrong.

A competing faction takes the possibility that Russia might use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine somewhat more seriously, but their “solution” is terrifying. Max Boot contends that President Biden needs to prevent that from happening by emphasizing that, while under current circumstances the United States will not fight Russia directly, all bets are off if Putin goes nuclear. Even without resorting to nuclear weapons of their own, NATO could launch airstrikes that would rapidly sink the entire Russian Black Sea fleet and destroy much of the Russian army in and around Ukraine. That would shake Putin’s criminal regime to its foundations. We cannot stop Putin from a reckless escalation, but we need to convince him that the price would be too high to pay. We certainly should not allow his threats to deter us from providing Ukraine with every weapon it needs to win.

Boot apparently assumes that the Russian bear would simply slink away from such a confrontation and lick its wounds.  Even for a fan of U.S. military power and its promiscuous use, Boot's is an extraordinarily arrogant and irresponsible assumption. He does not even seem to consider the possibility that Russia might choose instead to escalate the confrontation. And escalation in this case would mean an outright nuclear war between Russia and NATO.  

The Biden administration is trying to straddle the two positions taken by its hawkish allies in the foreign-policy blob. U.S. officials contend that it is “unlikely” that Russia will use nuclear weapons, but concede that the threat of that scenario has “elevated” in recent weeks.

Some Russian leaders unfortunately seem as arrogant as their American counterparts and assume that Moscow’s use of nuclear weapons would not trigger a NATO attack. Putin’s trusted deputy, Dmitry Medvedev, epitomized that attitude in a September 27 statement. "Let’s imagine that Russia is forced to use its most formidable weapons against the Ukrainian regime, which has committed a large-scale act of aggression that is endangering the very existence of our state. I believe that NATO will not directly interfere in the conflict even in this scenario," Medvedev contended. He added that the security of Washington, London, and Brussels was "much more important to NATO than the fate of a dying Ukraine.”  

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/10/the_us_navy_is_taking_vladimir_putin_very_seriously.html

“Russian president Vladimir Putin put the world on strategic nuclear alert with an ominous message.  He linked his threat to use nuclear weapons with justification of the U.S. ending WWII by bombing Japan with two atomic bombs.

MOSCOW, Sept 30 (Reuters) — Russian President Vladimir Putin said the United States had created a "precedent" by using nuclear weapons against Japan at the end of World War Two, in a speech filled with hostility towards the West delivered from the Kremlin on Friday.

Fears of nuclear war have grown since Putin said last week he was "not bluffing" when he said Russia was prepared to use nuclear weapons to defend its territory.

Best take note: if someone is threatening to kill you, believe him — and Putin was building up to putting nuclear weapons front and center even before he invaded Ukraine.

The past is prologue, because he had previously announced in 2019 that his military, specifically his naval submarine force, has essentially developed an operational nuclear doomsday 100-megaton torpedo.

Readers of American Thinker may remember when, on March 14, 2019, I asked a simple, direct question:

Is President Putin diabolically smart or simply a psychopath?  Perhaps he is both, because by his direct action, the world is now a much more dangerous place as the former KGB officer creates a nuclear doomsday scenario backed by real Russian naval capabilities:

• Russia is said to have built a new 100-megaton underwater nuclear doomsday device, and it has threatened the US with it.
• The device goes beyond traditional ideas of nuclear war fighting and poses a direct threat to the future of humanity or life on Earth.
• Nobody has ever built a weapon like this before, because there's almost no military utility in so badly destroying the world.

Now his threat is being made real — and right now, today, is triggering a second Battle of the Atlantic.

As an Annapolis graduate in 1969, I was blessed with having the WWII "Victory at Sea" generation as instructors and powerful senior military courageous leaders.  All of us studied the U.S. and Allied forces fighting the Battle of the Atlantic against Nazi subs.

Our first superintendent was Admiral Draper Kauffman, with two Navy Crosses and founder of the SEALs.  When he retired, our second superintendent was Admiral James Calvert, with two Silver Stars and two Bronze Stars, having been present on his submarine for the Tokyo Bay surrender ceremonies.

Admiral Calvert also authored one the most important books ever penned about applied U.S. Navy submarine deterrence capability; Surface at The Pole, in which he took his nuclear submarine the USS Skate to the North Pole to show Russia we can fight you anywhere, any time.

Sadly, those dangerous old days of fighting a submarine war in the north Atlantic are now coming back with a vengeance.  A powerful breaking headline from Fox News was just published: "Russian nuclear submarine armed with 'doomsday' weapon disappears from Arctic harbor."

Putin's Belgorod submarine is said to be capable of creating a 1,600-ft 'radioactive tsunami.'

The first Battle of the Atlantic was a "kill or be killed" fight in the unforgiving North Atlantic, especially in winter.  The losses were staggering on both sides, but victory was achieved because of the 36,000 German U-Boat sailors, only 3,000 survived the end of the war.

Getting ready for another Battle of the Atlantic since Putin's threat in 2019, the U.S. Navy anticipated such events and has brilliantly stayed a step ahead.  The Navy reconstituted our 2nd Fleet, reaching from the Atlantic seaboard into the far reaches of the Arctic, on August 25, 2018.

Giving credit where credit is due, in my lifelong connection with our Sea Services since Annapolis and earlier in my schooldays, with my father serving on the USS Triton, SSRN/SSN-586, and then the Henry Clay, SSBN-625, I believe that the then–chief of naval operations (CNO), Admiral John Richardson, is  perhaps the smartest CNO in my time.  Admiral Richardson selected Vice Admiral Woody Lewis, who was widely respected as visionary fighting admiral, to stand up the 2nd Fleet.

In a recent book with my co-author  Robbin Laird, A Maritime Kill Web Force in The Making, we devote an entire chapter to the stand-up of the 2nd Fleet.  Now reported — as often said, ripped from the headlines — on October 3, 2022, the newest and most powerful aircraft carrier in the world, the USS Gerald Ford, CVN-78, just sortied out of Norfolk to join the 2nd Fleet.  And another fighting admiral, now commanding the 2nd Fleet, was just quoted:

Vice Adm. Daniel Dwyer, commander of the US 2nd Fleet said that CSG 12, which the Ford carrier is leading, will range throughout the Atlantic Ocean operating with navies of allied and partner nations.

Facing down the Russian threat of death to all Americans, we all should wish the 2nd Fleet Godspeed, good luck, and good hunting.  Our lives may soon depend on our fighting Navy.  And the U.S. Navy doesn't bluff.”