Bombs
I was a history/political science major at Denison University in Granville, Ohio. One of the early courses I took was Poli Sci –360, titled “Problems in American National Security”. The short name for the course was “Bombs”. It was about the “theories” behind the nuclear standoff of the Cold War, and how the United States and the Soviet Union faced each other.
It was the mid-1970’s, and studying nuclear war was hardly an esoteric exercise. Two nations had the ultimate power to destroy the world. Both were poised on a hair trigger to do it. And with the advent of computerization, that trigger was becoming more automated. The proverbial finger on the button was more likely to be a series of binary equations adding up to “launch”.
MAD
We learned terms like “Mutual Assured Destruction”(MAD). That’s the idea that both sides knew full well that there was no winner in an all-out nuclear exchange. Odd, that the ultimate power to destroy the world was held back by weakness: if they can destroy us, we should not attack them. In fact, the greatest risk of war, was if one side found a “new tool”allowing them to survive the all-out war. If one side could live to be “the winner”, then the other side was ultimately vulnerable.
The only choice that vulnerable side would have would be to attack: to launch a “First Strike” all-out nuclear war, before the new tool could be fully implemented. The two greatest threats for nuclear war were “accidental” triggers, and one side getting too great an advantage.
And so the US and Soviet Union engaged in a series of technological races, to build a “better bomb”. The Soviets built bigger, the biggest bomb ever detonated. It was the 1961 “Tsar Bomb” at fifty megatons (equivalent to fifty million tons of TNT) and 3800 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. And that was only at “half power”. Even the Soviets were unwilling to try a 100 megaton blast. The United States went for targeting accuracy. There was no need to make the bombs bigger if they could land them directly on their targets.
The Edge
And both sides engaged in “brinksmanship”; moving as close to the edge of nuclear war as they could, without stepping over the line. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the most obvious example, but there were other, less known confrontations where the world was at risk. It was in 1983, a few weeks after the Soviets shot down a Korean Air Lines passenger flight. Soviet defense computers detected five US missiles launched. A Soviet Lieutenant Colonel, Stanislav Petrov, acting on his own, determined that this had to be a mistake. He stopped the “automatic” launch response.
Petrov was right: the computers were in error. And if he hadn’t acted, it’s likely nuclear war would have begun on the 26th of September. His decision ended his military advancement, but it ultimately was seen as saving the world (US Park Service).
Bankruptcy
The Cold War ended when the United States invested over half a trillion dollars in a “space based” defense program. The program was Strategic Defense Initiative, nicknamed “Star Wars”. It hoped to put satellites in space that could intercept any Soviet missiles fired against the United States. The Soviets tried to match the investment with their own programs, and the race became as much about money as weapons. Ultimately, “Star Wars” didn’t work. But that and a failed war in Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviet economy and caused the fall of the Communist government.
If “Star Wars” had worked, it likely would have triggered a nuclear war. The Soviets would have been forced to launch, before a “Star Wars” system could be put in place, otherwise, Mutual Assured Destruction would be over, and they would be ultimately vulnerable. The United States “played” on the edge of nuclear destruction, and won economically: brinksmanship.
Thirty years after “Star Wars”, the United States and Russia still have hundreds of weapons aimed at each other. While the likelihood of nuclear devastation is less, we still have our missiles, bombers and submarines poised to strike. And access to nuclear weapons is spreading to less-stable regimes: North Korea likely has “the bomb”, and Iran is working on one as well.
Economic Edge
Today the United States government is “playing” a different kind of brinksmanship. The “debt ceiling” was created during World War I, to allow the government room to borrow money to prosecute the war. The debt ceiling is like a credit card limit, with one big difference. The money is already spent: Congress has already passed the laws spending the money. So failing to raise the debt ceiling is simply refusing to pay for money already spent.
If the United States fails to raise the debt ceiling, then the government begins to default on its debts. A failure of the US to pay its debts will create an economic crisis in the world,where the US Dollar is the bedrock currency. Even the talk of failing to honor the debt is causing economic repercussions.
The House of Representatives already voted to raise the ceiling and pay the bills of the United States. But the Senate has not. Republicans are voting against it as a fifty vote block. In addition, the Republicans are also filibustering passage, creating the requirement that sixty Senators agree. And since the Senate is fifty-fifty, either ten Republican Senators must change their mind, or the fifty Democrats need to change the rules and end the filibuster for this issue, with Vice President Harris adding her vote to break the tie.
There is a third option, the convoluted “budget reconciliation” process that circumvents the filibuster. But reconciliation takes time, a long series of votes, and can only be used for a limited number to times in a session.
Winners and Losers
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sees the deadlock as a “win-win-win” situation for his Republicans. He is depending on the Democrats to pass a debt ceiling increase, either using the reconciliation process or by breaking the filibuster. If they use reconciliation, then they can’t use it for other issues (like the Build-Back-Better infrastructure plan). If Democrats vote to break the filibuster, then McConnell will be able to campaign on the “Democrats spending us into inflation”. And if they don’t pass a debt ceiling increase – then the “Democrats can’t govern”.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and President Biden also see a “win-win”. If the Republicans continue to refuse to raise the ceiling, then they are “playing politics with the American economy”. And if Schumer and Biden refuse to use reconciliation, then they may force the “swing” Democrats to break the filibuster rule. That’s something they need for other legislation, like the voting rights acts.
Of course, all of this is premised on the idea that somewhere, somehow, the Senate WILL pass the debt ceiling, and that further damage to the US and world economies will be avoided. But that all depends on a “Colonel Petrov” moment. Either two Democratic Senators vote to break the filibuster (with forty-eight of their fellow Democrats), or ten Republican Senators vote with the Democrats, to lift the debt ceiling. Some members of the Senate will need to see the catastrophe ahead, and decide to stop the “automatic response”.
Or the US defaults on its debts and our economy, along with the rest of the world’s, goes over the brink.
