Putin's MAD gamble: How Seriously Should We Take Nuclear Threats?
Photo by Vitaly V. Kuzmin licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International licence
It’s been two years since the doomsday clock was reset, and we’re already 100 seconds to midnight – midnight, in this case, nuclear apocalypse. The Doomsday Clock, which does as its name would suggest, has become a universally recognised indicator of existential threats posed to our world. Despite sounding like something dreamt up for a dystopian film franchise, the clock is not prophetic. It’s controlled by a board of experts that watch for the looming danger of threats including climate change, disruptive technologies, and nuclear war. It’s a warning to citizens and leaders of the world and a call to action. Their website asserts that “the international security situation is now more dangerous than it has ever been, even at the height of the cold war.”
The horror of nuclear warfare has hung over our heads since two years before the cold war began when the United States detonated an Atomic Bomb over Nagasaki in 1945. Seven decades later, whilst no further nuclear missiles have deployed, the threat of nuclear war is undiminished. At the end of the Cold War, NATO dramatically reduced its holding of weapons, slashing nuclear weapons in Europe by 90 percent with the aim of encouraging Russia to do the same.
Although a number of nuclear arms reduction treaties have since been signed by Russia, it retains a holding of tactical nuclear weapons estimated to be 10 times America’s. These tactical nuclear missiles are potentially several times more powerful than the nuclear weapons used in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There has therefore been understandable concern about Russia’s substantial nuclear stockpile. Putin, like his American counterparts, is never far from an aide carrying the briefcase containing codes needed for a nuclear launch; nuclear war, with all its apocalyptic implications, is always within reach. Still, despite the destructive power of tactical nuclear missiles, which might tempt some world leaders, they’ve never been used in combat.
The severe ethical implications of deployment aside, it’s likely we have the theory of mutually assured destruction to thank. Mutually assured destruction, or MAD, is the idea that a nuclear attack would immediately be met with a counter-nuclear attack leading to the annihilation of everyone involved. Although this idea should be enough to deter sensible leaders, putting the international community’s mind at ease, tensions rose when, in Putin’s televised address, the Russian President promised to use, “all available means to defend Russian territory,” fanning the flames of nuclear fear once again.
So how seriously should we take this threat?
Putin's promise to employ “all available means” coupled with the brutality of Russia’s offensive in Ukraine has made many people uneasy. Russian operations have already crossed significant ethical barriers. Purposeful attacks on civilians in Ukraine, of which the Russian military has been accused, constitute a serious breach of the Geneva Conventions. Russia's uninhibited approach along with the fact successful Ukrainian counter-offensives seem to have put Russia at a disadvantage - Putin himself admitting severe losses – suggests a future where Putin is willing to cross the nuclear threshold to ‘win’ the War in Ukraine. However, nuclear missiles are unlikely to change the outcome of this war: a nuclear deployment from Russia would invite an immediate international response. Such a response, Defence Analyst Michael Clarke claims, would render Russia’s nuclear arsenal impotent. In fact, Putin may have more to gain from threats of nuclear warfare than nuclear warfare itself, by sowing enough doubt to dissuade increased military support and even direct military intervention by NATO powers. It's for this reason many experts insist Putin’s threat is a bluff.
To counter it, Biden's administration insists “Putin’s threats won’t lessen US support for Ukraine.” Putin’s threats amount to what appears little more than a twisted game of chicken, albeit with much higher stakes, between Russia and Ukraine’s NATO allies. How close is each party willing to toe the nuclear line? Reassuringly it’s a line Russia seems far from crossing: Jeremy Fleming, head of GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) which monitors the Russian military, has stated he’s seen no indication of Russia preparing to use a tactical nuclear weapon in or around Ukraine. In this light, a nuclear crisis is considered highly unlikely and flames of fearful speculation are dampened. Western officials continue to hold firm in the sentiment that whilst Putin's comments are deeply irresponsible, they don’t see this as a nuclear crisis.
Nevertheless, officials internationally are currently re-examining plans to provide “emergency support and reassurance” for populations fearful of nuclear escalation. The threat of a nuclear strike, whilst unlikely, is still real as is the more likely threat of a panicked population. Jake Sullivan, the US national security advisor, warns there would be “catastrophic consequences” for Russia if it attempts to deploy a nuclear weapon. Threatening Putin instead of Russia, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, said he believed Putin understood that the “world will never forgive,” a nuclear strike. “[Putin] understands that after the use of nuclear weapons he would be unable anymore to preserve, so to speak, his life, and I’m confident of that.” And so it’s through its principle of deterrence that we once again find uneasy reassurance in the idea of mutually assured destruction.
“Two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, and the other with five.” - Carl Sagan