Head of Strategic Command: US Must Prepare for "Very Real Possibility" of
Nuclear War With China
In an era when international cooperation in the face of pandemics and
climate change is essential, the world appears to be racing towards a new
Cold War, and unfortunately, few except the military top brass are talking
about it.
by Alan Macleod
February 05th, 2021
Mint Press
By Alan Macleod
Writing in the U.S. Naval Institute Journal, Admiral Charles A. Richard
warned that the military must "consider the possibility of great power
competition, crisis, or direct armed conflict with a nuclear-capable peer"
and update and modernize its approach to its two principal adversaries.
"There is a real possibility that a regional crisis with Russia or China
could escalate quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons," he wrote,
demanding that the United States "prepare for the conflict we prefer,
instead of one we are likely to face."
Richard accused the Chinese of "mak[ing] technological leaps in capabilities
in every domain" and Russia of "aggressively modernizing its nuclear
forces." He concluded that "the probability of nuclear use is low, but not
impossible, particularly in a crisis and as our nuclear-armed adversaries
continue to build capability and exert themselves globally," and that the
U.S. risks suffering "embarrassment" or worse if they do not act.
The admiral's words closely echo a recent report from the Atlantic Council -
a body that is filled with top American generals and closely linked to NATO.
The council advised President Biden to draw a number of "red lines" around
China, past which the U.S. would respond militarily. These included
virtually any Chinese military actions in the South China Sea, cyberattacks
on its neighbors, or even a North Korean strike on its adversaries. Any
backing down from the brink, the council insisted, would mean national
"humiliation" for the United States.
In recent months, the United States has taken a number of provocative
military actions on China's doorstep. In July, it conducted naval exercises
in the South China Sea, with warships and naval aircraft spotted just 41
miles from the coastal megacity of Shanghai, intent on probing China's
coastal defenses. In December, it flew nuclear bombers over Chinese vessels
close to Hainan Island. Last year Florida Senator Rick Scott stated that
every Chinese national in the U.S. was a communist spy and should be treated
with extreme suspicion.
Scott's words are part of a broader propaganda war against China. In 2011,
the American public's view of the country was strongly favorable. However,
due in no small part to fearmongering stoked by politicians and media
pundits, nearly three-quarters of Americans (a historic high) hold negative
views of China, with less than one-quarter positively rating the country,
according to Pew Research.
It is a similar story with Russia. During the 2012 presidential debates,
Republican nominee Mitt Romney was relentlessly mocked for his position that
Russia was an adversary. "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign
policy back, because the Cold War's been over for 20 years," President Obama
famously quipped. Since then, however, the number of Americans with a
favorable view of Russia has dropped from an all-time high in 2011 of 49% to
just 19% today.
Perhaps due to increased nationalistic sentiment, little attention has been
paid to the Trump administration's decisions to back out of every
international anti-nuclear weapons deal the U.S. had signed, including the
Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) and the Open Skies treaties as well
as the New START agreement.
Last week, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reset their famous Doomsday
Clock - an estimation to how close the world is to armageddon - to just 100
seconds to midnight, the closest, in their estimation, we have ever been to
complete destruction. Explaining their decision, the committee, which
includes 13 Nobel laureates, stated that nuclear nations have,
Ignored or undermined practical and available diplomatic and security tools
for managing nuclear risks. By our estimation, the potential for the world
to stumble into nuclear war-an ever-present danger over the last 75
years-increased in 2020."
One piece of good news came down on Wednesday when the White House announced
it had renewed the New START treaty - a deal which limits the number of
nuclear missiles the U.S. and Russia can possess. However, on Iran,
Venezuela, China, Afghanistan, and other nations, Biden appears to be
maintaining Trump's aggressive policies.
The outcome of any nuclear confrontation has been well understood by war
planners for over half a century. In his book "The Doomsday Machine:
Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" former military analyst and
whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explained that his team calculated that, in
the event of a totally successful widespread American nuclear strike against
the Soviet Union, with no retaliation whatsoever, at least 99% of the
world's population would die as a result. As he noted:
It is the smoke, after all (not the fallout, which would remain mostly
limited to the northern hemisphere), that would do it worldwide: smoke and
soot lofted by fierce firestorms in hundreds of burning cities into the
stratosphere, where it would not rain out and would remain for a decade or
more, enveloping the globe and blocking most sunlight, lowering annual
global temperatures to the level of the last Ice Age, and killing all
harvests worldwide, causing near-universal starvation within a year or two."
In an era when international cooperation in the face of pandemics and
climate change is essential, the world appears to be racing towards a new
Cold War. Unfortunately, few except the military top brass are talking about
it. Worse still, they seem to be almost delighted at the prospect.
