When I was in college, back in the days of quill pens and inkwells, my best friend, Ken Vermillion and I used to have fanciful and oh-so-educated discussions about nuclear war. We had deterrence down flat, and Mr Vermillion, who sadly left this mortal vale in 2018, could quote his favorite movie, Dr Strangelove, extensively.
We met in 1973, drinking coffee with several other students in the old Student Center cafeteria, speculating whether an underwater nuclear explosion off the coast of California could trigger a tidal wave to hit Los Angeles.
But we were sophomores, and sophomores can discuss stuff like that with both impunity and the knowledge that we’d almost certainly ever be in a position to wage nuclear war.
John Bolton, now 76 years old, is not a sophomore. Having previously held the positions of assistant to the president for national security affairs (APNSA), commonly referred to as the national security advisor, from April 9, 2018 until September 10, 2019, when he was fired resigned, and as Under Secretary of State and Ambassador to the United Nations under the younger President Bush, he has a reputation which gets him all of the good news channel appearances. But, sadly, he’s just an idiot. He tweeted:
This ongoing threat of a “wider war” in Ukraine could be conventional, or it could be nuclear. If it’s a conventional threat, then where is the Russian army that’s going to provoke this war? And if it’s nuclear, it is important to remember that the U.S. has never renounced the first use of nuclear weapons. While these threats should not be entirely disregarded, it’s critical that the U.S. does not fall for Putin’s bluff.
What kind of absolute stupidity is that?
If he felt pushed to the wall enough, Russian President Vladimir Putin could use short-range, ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons, or ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons on military targets inside Ukraine, with the completely predictable result of NATO leaders, including President Joe Biden, absolutely [insert vulgar term for defecating here] their collective pants.
What could NATO actually do about it? Only three NATO nations — the United States, United Kingdom, and France — have nuclear weapons, so, despite Ambassador Bolton’s statement that “it is important to remember that the U.S. has never renounced the first use of nuclear weapons,” it’s also important to consider what nuclear weapons we have. The British maintain four SSBNs, nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, and the French have a similar arsenal, along with several warheads which can be fitted on air-launched cruise missiles. Neither country has nuclear weapons stationed in any other country.
The United States has approximately 100 B61 nuclear bombs stored at six bases in five NATO countries: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel Air Base in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Air Bases in Italy, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands, and Incirlik in Turkey. The weapons are kept in underground vaults and are not armed or deployed on aircraft.
What’s important about that is that NATO does not have any nuclear weapons stationed in Ukraine, which means that any nuclear response to a Russian ‘tactical’ nuclear strike in Ukraine would have to come either from NATO Europe, or intercontinentally from the United States or our SSBNs.
And that’s World War III!
In the movie Wargames, the computer which replaced humans in decision-taking for nuclear attacks, War Operation Plan Response, or WOPR, runs a bunch of simulations in the end and finally says, “An interesting game. The only winning move is not to play.”
John Bolton needs to watch that movie.