This is going to be a controversial (and under-discussed) issue. It is 100% that Russia's nuclear doctrine has evolved toward 'tactical' nuclear capabilities that are used as weapons of conventional warfare, and their technical capacity has evolved in parallel /1
Russian nuclear doctrine, for example, explicitly states that a nuclear weapon could be used to "de-escalate" a conflict, including by nuking their own people in order to stop the perceived loss of territory in an invasion etc /2
How we counter this is a significant challenge. Trying to do it only in the realm of the nuclear is not the answer.
Do we need to evaluate our capabilities, maintain and update our arsenal, and discuss theoretical usage? Of course. /3
Do we need to evaluate our capabilities, maintain and update our arsenal, and discuss theoretical usage? Of course. /3
However, we cannot decouple this from a broader strategy on Russia and deterrence.
Russia may have some new capabilities/weapons that are challenging to us, but that isn't the battlefield on which they envision defeating us. /4
Russia may have some new capabilities/weapons that are challenging to us, but that isn't the battlefield on which they envision defeating us. /4
Deterrence isn't hardware. It's preparation.
A new deterrence of Russian aggression will be human-led.
This requires leadership, and clarity of the threat, and a willingness to speak clearly to our people about what that threat is, and why it matters. /5
A new deterrence of Russian aggression will be human-led.
This requires leadership, and clarity of the threat, and a willingness to speak clearly to our people about what that threat is, and why it matters. /5
Deterrence is as much about values and moral certainty as it is about technical capabilities and training.
Right now, these are terrible deficits in our arsenal. /6
Right now, these are terrible deficits in our arsenal. /6
