Thinking the Unthinkable

A few days ago, a Soviet style drone with explosives crashed in a field in Croatia. It flew 700 miles, over the NATO countries of Romania and Hungary, to explode near Zagreb, the capital of NATO member Croatia. It might have been Russian or Ukrainian. Neither country has accepted responsibility (BBC).

MAD

At the height of the Cold War in 1962, an American theorist named Herman Kahn published a book; Thinking the Unthinkable.  It was about strategies of nuclear war, beyond the widely accepted “MAD Theory”.  “MAD” meant mutually assured destruction, that no matter what kind of attack one nuclear power made, the “attackee” would have a remaining strike capability that would create unacceptable losses to the attacker.  That strike capability was called a “second strike”, and was a critical pillar of US nuclear strategy.

We had missiles in silos spread out through the United States.  We had nuclear bomb equipped aircraft on “ready alert”, prepared to fly to Failsafe positions around the Soviet Union on a few minutes notice.  And finally, we had nuclear missile submarines, almost untraceable, hidden in oceans throughout the world, ready to launch on order.  It was the “triad” defense, and it made the point – if you attack us, no matter how many missiles, how many bombs, how much nuclear destruction; there will still be enough weapons left over to destroy you.

Acceptable Losses

Herman Kahn was thinking about how the  United States could “protect” enough of its population to make a Soviet second strike “survivable”.  He theorized that there could be an acceptable nuclear war, if “only” twenty percent or so of the population was lost.  In those days, that meant casualties of twenty to thirty million.

Other strategists didn’t find those losses “acceptable”.  In fact, the Civil Defense movement of the 1950’s and early 1960’s phased out because it was seen as moving towards an “acceptable loss” view.  (If you’re my age or older, you remember the black and yellow Civil Defense signs, all over the place). And in the 1980’s, the Reagan “Star Wars” anti-missile defense program was considered dangerous because it threatened the balance of MAD.

Article Five

Sunday, Russian non-nuclear missiles struck a Ukrainian base, just twelve miles from the Polish border.  The United States is pledged under Article Five of the NATO agreement to defend Polish soil is if it were our own. US Troops are already there, as well as in the Baltic States, held at the ready for a Russian attack.  There are over 100,000 US forces in Europe.

President Biden made it clear in his speech last week.  The United States will supply and support Ukrainian forces, but will not fight in Ukraine.  That’s as long as the Russian invasion remains “status-quo”.  As Biden said, US forces against Russians is the definition of World War III.  But Biden also made it clear, that we will fight World War III against Russia, if they decide to attack any NATO country.  

And what happens if the “status quo” changes?  Biden left open what the US would do should Russia decide to use chemical, cyber (or nuclear) weapons in Ukraine. 

Putin’s Goals

We know what Vladimir Putin wants.  He’s made it clear:  he wants to reconstitute the Soviet empire, both the “states” of the USSR (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine) and the “Warsaw Pact” Russia leaning Eastern European countries.  What we don’t know, is how far Putin is willing to go to achieve that goal. 

It’s clear that Russia thought the invasion of Ukraine would be swift and devastating.  Their “plan” called for a quick decapitation of Ukraine by capturing Kyiv, taking the eastern part of the nation, and cutting off access to the Black Sea.  But what they thought would be a week long campaign has entered a fourth week, and the battle is deteriorating.   It’s now an ugly street to street and house to house slog, losing thousands of soldiers and millions of dollars of equipment. It has backfired to the world:  uniting NATO, the European Union, and the vast majority of countries in the United Nations against Russia.

Now that the operational plan in Ukraine has failed, and much of the world is united, what will Mr. Putin do? 

Fulfill His Destiny

He likely will fight to fulfill the Ukraine strategy – take Kyiv, take the east, and block the Black Sea.  It will then turn into a dangerous war of occupation, one that will suck the life out of the Russian Army, just as Afghanistan did thirty-five years ago.  Common sense would dictate that he would stop there:  the next step would be too awesomely terrible to contemplate.  

But we can’t be sure of that.  No one is “in” Putin’s head.  After more than twenty years in power, we don’t know to what lengths he will go to “fulfill his destiny”.  And with his autocratic power, it is an individual decision, one that will be made by him and him alone.

The NATO countries are suppling weapons to Ukraine.  If Russia decides to interdict the supply lines outside of Ukraine, NATO needs to respond in kind.  For every missile or bomb that lands in NATO, the NATO countries led by the United States must not only take out the launch site, but interdict Russian supply lines in Russia and Belarus in a similar fashion.  And that means American war-fighters will be at risk against the Russian military.  By the President’s definition – it’s World War III.

Limited Warfare

But, to “think the unthinkable”, this can be an incremental war, that need not rise to nuclear standards.  If Russia launches an actual invasion of Poland or the Baltic States, the US and NATO must respond with more than equal force to repel that invasion.  And once those forces are repelled back into Russian boundaries, the US and NATO must stop.  The goal must be to keep Russia in place, not destroy Putin’s regime.  If we try to do that, we risk all of the Mutually Assured Destruction nightmare scenarios contemplated for generations. 

One theory of warfare among nuclear nations is the “slippery slope” theory.  It states that no matter how incremental the warfare, once two Nuclear Nations are at war, they will ultimately  use their nuclear weapons, rather than lose.  That is why “losing” cannot be total. Going to war can only be incremental, force level to force level.  Once we cross the “threshold” of direct confrontation, the world steps onto that slippery slope.  It would be easy to fall, or to force the opponent to fall as well.  Even leaders of good will could fall into a MAD consequence.  That is why containing Russia to its borders, or pushing their forces back, is all we can do.

That’s the danger we face from the Ukraine situation, the danger that Putin himself has created.  But to fail to act is truly just as dangerous.  An unfettered Russian aggression holds few bounds except those we are willing to place on them.  President Biden has clearly drawn his “line in the sand”.  Let’s hope that Mr. Putin gets the message.

Essays on the Ukraine Crisis

• Thinking the Unthinkable – 3/14/22
• Russian Oil – 3/11/22
• Kyiv’s Choice – 3/8/22
• The Logic of Madness – 3/7/22
• Lights Out – 3/6/22
• Ante Up – 3/3/22
• State of the Union  3/2/22
• The Guns of March 3/1/22
• Sanctions 2/26/22
• What Happens Next 2/24/22
• The Games Begin  2/22/22
• Talking with a Friend 2/18/22
• Trip Wire 2/2/22
• On the Brink 1/23/22
• The Ukrainian Dilemma 12/5/19