The phrase “Existential Threat” seems to fill our airwaves currently. It’s the new “go to” word for politicians of all persuasions and is mimicked by the media, equally of all persuasions. However, I have just read an article in The Economist magazine which puts any existential political threat in the category of minor annoyances. That article discusses the very real possibility of three nuclear wars occurring at the same time…and in the not-too-distant future. To make it more real, the U.S. Pentagon is gearing up its planning, strategies and military equipment build-up in anticipation of such events.

      What if, as the Pentagon doomsday scenario goes, Russia attacked a NATO country, drawing America in to defend Europe; then China seized on America’s distraction to invade Taiwan, and then North Korea decided to attack South Korea. Three wars; three sets of friends and allies; three unpredictable nuclear crises. Could America handle them all?

      Is this paranoia, maybe, but I am reminded, once again, of the adage that states, “Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.” Apparently, some planners in the Pentagon believe that as well.

      President Joe Biden’s administration has already begun preparing for an expansion of America’s deployed nuclear forces, after decades of deep cuts. The expiration of the current agreement between Russia and the U.S., which restricts the size of nuclear arsenals, and which will happen in 2026, could be the start of America’s nuclear build-up.

      Russia has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and shows no interest whatsoever in extending the current restrictions agreement. Indeed, they have blatantly violated the treaty already, and have even stated plans to deploy nuclear weapons in space. The idea that they might use those weapons in an attack on a NATO country has forced the West to re-evaluate its nuclear position, and arsenals. The frightening doomsday scenario of a Russian conflict coupled with a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and a North Korean attack on South Korea only exacerbates the situation, and demands strong preparatory action.

      Thanks to the arms-control treaties, the world’s nuclear stockpile shrank from 70,000 in 1986 to 12,000 today. (Remember my blog about Dr. Thomas Neff, and his role in reducing nuclear arsenals). President Obama even spoke of a world without nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, that heady goal now seems out of reach, and disappearing fast. An official of the Pentagon recently stated that, “The quarter century of nuclear intermission is over”.

      Plans that have basically been on hold for many years are being “dusted off” by the American military: New ICBMs, new ballistic-missile submarines, and new bombers (B-21 jets super ceding B-52s and B-2s) as well as new command-and-control systems. Even Congress, despite the chaos of the current political situation, has retained the new nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile system (SLCM-N) against the wishes of the Biden administration, which saw it as a distraction from the modernization of other systems.

      All of these efforts seem to be taking place outside of general public knowledge, which is probably just as well given the urgency of preparing against such a doomsday scenario. The media would have a field-day, and the politicians would hold endless public hearings that would postpone any readiness way beyond the potential threat. “Be prepared” is the obvious creed and, once again, “paranoia doesn’t mean the threat isn’t real”.

      It’s not only Russia, although that is the most obvious threat. China, which traditionally been the most prominent proponent of minimum deterrence, has adopted the logic that more nukes are better. What of China’s rival, India; and of India’s rival Pakistan? If North Korea reaches its goal of becoming a nuclear power, all bets are off, since that maniac Kim Jon Un is liable to do anything.

      A new nuclear arms race could be far more complex than the terrifying rivalry of the Soviet-American rivalry of the Cold War.

      I must admit that this article in The Economist sent shivers down my spine!

About The Author

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

For security, use of hCaptcha is required which is subject to their Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I agree to these terms.

Scroll to Top