Outside the US, both established and emerging nuclear powers increasingly see nuclear weapons as weapons that can be used in a controlled, limited, and strategically useful fashion, said Barry Watts, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, arguably the Pentagons favorite thinktank. The Cold War firebreaks between conventional and nuclear conflict are breaking down, he wrote in a recent report. Russia has not only developed new, relatively low-yield tactical nukes but also routinely wargamed their use to stop both NATO and Chinese conventional forces should they overrun Moscows feeble post-Soviet military, Watts said this morning at the headquarters of the Air Force Association. Pakistan is likewise developing tactical nukes to stop Indias much larger military. Iran seeks nuclear weapons not only to offset Israels but to deter and, in the last resort, fend off an American attempt to perform regime change in Tehran the way we did in Baghdad. The US Air Force and Navy concept of AirSea Battle in the Western Pacific could entail strikes on the Chinese mainland that might provoke a nuclear response.
Its precisely because US conventional power is so overwhelming that the temptation to turn to nuclear weapons to redress the balance is so irresistible. Ten years ago, the Iraqis sidestepped American dominance in the middle of the spectrum of conflict regular warfare with tanks, planes, and precision-guided non-nuclear weapons by going low and waging guerrilla warfare, for which the US proved painfully unprepared. In the future, nuclear proliferation means more and more countries will have the option to sidestep US conventional power by going high and staging a limited nuclear attack, for which we arent really prepared either. Indeed, some countries, notably a nuclear Iran with its terrorist proxies and North Korea with its criminal ties and special operations forces, could outflank Americas conventional military from both sides at once.
So, could the US military keep going after losing an Army brigade or a Navy aircraft carrier to a tactical nuclear strike? I dont think weve thought about continuing to do conventional operations in an environment in which some nuclear weapons have been used, [not] since the Cold War, Watts told me after his talk. Youve got to have equipment that continues to work in that environment, and, in general, we dont.
For example, one of the ways the Army economized on its new Nett Warrior communications gear for foot troops was to scrap the requirement for its circuit to survive the electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, from a nuclear detonation, which can spread far below the lethal blast and radiation effects: Such shortcuts make sense for Afghanistan and Iraq, but not for Korea. So there are a lot of things you might want to invest in, to put it mildly, said Watts. One particularly controversial suggestion Watts offered is for the US to invest in new tactical nuclear weapons of its own. Currently, Watts argued, if an enemy attacks with a relatively low-yield atomic bomb, Americas choices for a response are limited to conventional strikes or thermonuclear weapons, with very little in between.
More No Longer Unthinkable: Should US Ready For ?Limited? Nuclear War? « Breaking Defense
