Nuclear Weapons: What Are They Really Good For? – We have written about Russian nationalist social media influencers and bloggers who have called for the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine. While this is a plausible but unlikely event, Vladimir Putin has not dismissed it out of hand. He could instead test a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon to show the world that he means to frighten Ukraine and the West into submission.
Nukes Are a Big Waste
Tu-160 Bomber Russian Air Force. Image Credit: Russian State Media.
Russia Tu-160 Bomber. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
But what if a country with nuclear weapons has no real advantage on the modern battlefield? If they are not used, then countries in the nuclear club can only make idle threats with no plans for actual deployment.
One Analyst Is Pessimistic That Nuclear Weapons Can Deter Enemies
Zhou Bo, a retired Chinese colonel and senior fellow at the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, wrote an opinion piece in the South China Morning Post. Zhou is not convinced that a country with such a large supply of nuclear weapons like Russia has completely deterred Ukraine, the United States, and its western allies.
Nuclear weapons have long been seen by military strategists as a way to overawe an adversary. The use of a tactical atomic device could perhaps win a war outright or at least frighten one side into seeking peace talks. That hasn’t happened in Ukraine.
What’s the Point of Having a Nuclear Arsenal?
“Why haven’t Ukraine’s drone and missile attacks on Russia triggered Moscow’s use of tactical nuclear weapons, as it has threatened? Zhou asked. “When Russia is attacked time and again, one wonders what purpose it serves to have the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.”
Putin and his hardline group of supporters seem to be waving “atomic pitchforks” but have not seen Russia follow up with a nuclear incident. This is good news for non-proliferation adherents, but Zhou doesn’t believe that this is the best way for the Russians and others to prosecute a war.
The Americans Have Not Created Deterrence Against Terrorists and Insurgents
Just take the United States for example. The nuclear power had tough sledding in Iraq and Afghanistan. No terrorist or insurgent was scared of the atomic option, and one could say that the United States never attained its strategic objectives and lost both wars. The Soviet Union also had an immense supply of nuclear weapons, and it was not successful in Afghanistan either.
Combatants just assume the United States or Soviet Union will not do the unthinkable and plunge the world into a nuclear holocaust. What is the point of having these weapons if they are never used and fail to deter enemies?
No Real Military Advantage for a Nuclear-armed Russia
Zhou rightly points out that Ukraine is in a stalemate with neither side moving battlelines at the front. Both countries have relied on strikes from ballistic missiles and drones to eliminate civilian targets. One could argue that Ukraine is conducting these tactics better than Russia. Attacks near Moscow and throughout the country on energy infrastructure have created fuel shortages and gas lines. Ukraine has even hit e-commerce websites owned by a company that is “Russia’s Amazon.”
The Nuclear Option in World War Two
Zhou wrongly claims that it would have been better for the United States to have executed a brief operation to take Japan and force capitulation with an all-out amphibious landing on Japanese shores. That way it would not have needed the Manhattan Project and would have resisted the use of nuclear strikes to end World War Two. This is a long-debated issue, but counter-factual history is usually not the best way to analyze military strategy.
A Reluctant Russia
Zhou claims that Russia believes that the use of a battlefield nuclear device detonated in Ukraine would create nuclear fall-out to blow back to Russia. He is also not sure that Putin has the gumption to order such a strike, as it would take the war to a level not seen in the 21st century.
Arms Control With the Three Most Powerful Countries
This doesn’t mean Russia, the United States, and China are going to give up their nuclear weapons, though. All of these countries fear a first strike and are confident that their second strike capabilities will keep the other side from attacking with atomic means.
But this is an intriguing op-ed from Zhou. Perhaps nuclear weapons are obsolete and cannot make a difference in conventional war. President Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, and Putin have used various forms of rhetoric to explain their nuclear strategy, but first use is highly unlikely.
Kinetic Missile Fight Assumes No Nuclear Contingencies
This means that modern warfare is the province of conventional ballistic missiles and drones – what I call the Kinetic Missile Fight. There is no call for nuclear strikes in my doctrine either. This could mean it’s time for arms control and more efforts at nuclear non-proliferation.
Plus, perhaps it is not wise to conduct an entire war based on whether Iran achieves a nuclear weapon. The Iranian regime may have no inclination to ever use it, but the United States and Israel maintain that Tehran would conduct a nuclear strike to wipe both countries off the face of the earth.
Zhou should be given credit for coming up with an alternative look at nuclear strategy. Most strategists just assume that nuclear weapons are a fact of life and deter enemies, but recent history shows that belligerents, insurgents, terrorists, and conventional armies have no fear of being targeted by nuclear weapons, and this calls into question whether the weapons of mass destruction may not even be needed in the future.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Author of now over 3,500 articles on defense issues, Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: A Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare, plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for US Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former US Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
