Will Doomsday Clock Require An Adjustment? 11:58:30. Will The Public Be Introduced To A New Acronym- DEFCON. If One Country Uses A Nuclear Weapon, Will Response Be A Nuclear Weapon? Unlikely
Will The Doomsday Clock Require An Adjustment?
11:58:30
President Putin May Welcome A Certain Type Of Tourist
Will The Public Be Introduced To A New Acronym? DEFCON
If One Country Uses A Nuclear Weapon, Will Response Be A Nuclear Weapon? Unlikely
A Game Of Chicken- Who Will Swerve First
Suppose the offensives (there will be more than one) during the next months by the armed forces of Ukraine against the armed forces of the Russian Federation are extraordinarily successful. For example, the armed forces of Ukraine moving towards or entering onto the Crimean Peninsula or retaking all of the Donbas Region (Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast) which then results in statements from and decisions by the government of the Russian Federation relating to its use of nuclear weapons.
These demonstratives could include shifting the readiness status of nuclear weapons and a public changing of locations for mobile nuclear weapons from their existing storage shelters, perhaps for “training” or “maintenance” purposes. Silo-based missiles will not be a primary trigger for political and media focus. Ocean/Sea-based launch systems would not need to be displayed- as well-known and documented is the lethality of submarines lurking in the Arctic Ocean, Baltic Sea, Bering Sea, Black Sea, and North Sea. They remain the most challenging to detect as missiles may be launched 10,000 miles from a target.
What might be the Washington DC/Inside-the-Beltway reaction to those nuclear weapons-related decisions by the government of the Russian Federation and the armed forces of the Russian Federation?
Any discussion of nuclear weapons- maintenance, deployment, operations, even washing, waxing, and polishing missiles, results in media and political hysteria. Think Atlanta, Georgia-based CNN’s “Breaking News” pronouncement all day, every day. Think archive images, audio, and video (1952’s broadcast of “Duck and Cover”) from October 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis). Think denunciations by legislators and parliamentarians in many countries.
Do not be surprised if Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation (2000-2008 and 2012- ) invites members of the media to tour silos and view road-based nuclear weapon delivery transportation vehicles. He will correctly anticipate the impact of those visuals upon constituencies in Ukraine, the thirty-one members of the Brussels, Belgium-based North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the twenty-seven members of the Brussels, Belgium-based European Union (EU), the United States, and other countries having provided commercial, economic, humanitarian, military, and political support to the government of Ukraine and armed forces of Ukraine. The impact will not solely further to unite governments against the government of the Russian Federation. The impact will fracture government-to-government alliances as efforts to promote de-escalation (by everyone) collide with efforts to promote capitulation (by the Russian Federation).
NATO members (31): United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Albania, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Romania, Germany, Slovakia, Greece, Slovenia, Hungary, Spain, Turkiye, Latvia, and North Macedonia. The Kingdom of Sweden awaits approval from the governments of the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Turkiye.
EU members (27): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.
In early 2022 during an interview broadcast by CNN, Christiane Amanpour, Chief International Anchor, asked Dimitri Peskov, Spokesperson for Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, to share under what circumstances would the government of the Russian Federation consider the use of nuclear weapons- he answered with the same language that any government possessing nuclear weapons would- if there is a perceived existential threat to the country, then such use would be considered. CNN over-edited and suggested the “Breaking News” remarks by Mr. Peskov was a threat statement confirming an intention of the government of the Russian Federation to use nuclear weapons within the territory of Ukraine. An implied danger arises from some media seeking to exacerbate the conflict in search of ratings and the commercial revenues derived from those ratings. An implied danger arises from interviewees recognizing that for some media the more inflammatory comments correspond with an enhanced number of invitations to interviewees.
The government of the Russian Federation would be expected to expedite to the Republic of Belarus the delivery nuclear weapons- if not already done so on mobile delivery transportation vehicles. The fear factor will derive from politicians and media focusing upon mobile delivery transportation vehicles- and the challenges with knowing their location in real time and thus predict their launch.
Will NATO members shift their readiness level in response? The political theory that “all politics is local” will be the norm. In the United States Congress (100-member Senate and 435-member House of Representatives) there will be tri-partisan (Democrats, Independents, Republicans) pressure upon Joseph Biden, 46th President of the United States (2021- ), to shift readiness levels downward from the current reported DEFCON 3 (“Round House”) to DEFCON 2 (“Fast Pace”) or DEFCON 1 (“Cocked Pistol”) for nuclear weapons located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkiye, and United States. He will resist while repeating that “All options are on the table.” The same pressures and response strategies will be adopted by Emmanuel Macon, President of the French Republic, and Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), each of whom controls nuclear weapons on their respective territory.
Those governments in NATO-member countries located on the European Continent will resist as they will receive considerable anti-war, anti-nuclear weapon, public protests- and that will exacerbate exiting and create new fractures within NATO. Protests would be guaranteed in the cities of Amsterdam, Berlin, Brussels, Budapest, London, Madrid, Paris (a certainty), Rome, and Washington DC. NOTE: There are elections in 2023 and in 2024 in the twenty-seven country EU- including for organization leadership, Turkiye (14 May 2023), Russian Federation (17 March 2024), Ukraine (31 March 2024), United States (5 November 2024), and other countries providing support to Ukraine.
The governments in NATO-member countries with nuclear weapons (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkiye) will neither permit NATO nor the Biden-Harris Administration to launch nuclear weapons from their territory into the territory of Ukraine (targeting the armed forces of the Russian Federation) or into the territory of the Russian Federation.
The government of the Russian Federation and the armed forces of the Russian Federation will expect that neither NATO members nor the United States will respond to a use of a nuclear weapon with a nuclear weapon. How much value then is the use of a nuclear weapon- first in the territory of Ukraine and then in response in the territory of the Russian Federation? Delivery of a nuclear weapon by the armed forces of the Russian Federation into the territory of Ukraine will result in immediate efforts to negotiate a cessation to the Russian Federation-Ukraine war. NATO members will neither provide a nuclear weapon to the armed forces of Ukraine so they may respond directly nor will NATO members approve a launch of a nuclear weapon targeting the armed forces of the Russian Federation.
There will remain the reality that the government of Ukraine is not a member of NATO. As such, an attack upon the territory of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation which includes the delivery of a nuclear weapon or weapons would not create for members of NATO a Charter Issue. There is no Article 5 issue or Article 6 issue.
Will the Doomsday Clock Be Adjusted? “Founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein and University of Chicago scientists who helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The Doomsday Clock is set every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 10 Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to global catastrophe caused by manmade technologies.”
The Doomsday Clock was reset to 90 seconds to midnight on 23 January 2023. Quite likely there would be another reset- which would create further political hysteria which many in media would irresponsibly focus upon- to create more viewers, listeners, and readers.
From www.military.com
DEFCON (Defense Readiness Condition or Defense Condition) is the U.S. military’s ranking system for defense readiness for a potential nuclear attack. The system of ranking the perceived threat to national security was created during the Cold War, when fear of communism was at a high.
DEFCON 5 is in effect for the lowest perceived threat, while DEFCON 1 is the highest threat level and readiness for a state of war. In 1959, when the DEFCON system was implemented, the Joint Chiefs of Staff explained in a memo: “A uniform system of progressive readiness is essential in insuring timely, accurate and clear direction of commands subordinate to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and in achieving greater effectiveness of U.S. forces in preparation for execution of contingency or emergency war plans. It will also assist in more rapid interpretation and evaluation of the readiness posture of the unified and specified commands.” DEFCON 5 is “peacetime normal,” the default state of readiness for the United States military. DEFCON 5 represents “a normal readiness posture which can be sustained indefinitely, and which represents an optimum balance between the requirements of readiness and the routine training and equipping of forces for their primary mission,” according to a Joint Chiefs of Staff description of this level when the DEFCON system was first introduced. The DEFCON 5 exercise term is “Fade Out.”
DEFCON 4 describes the everyday operating procedures for fighting units. At DEFCON 4, the U.S. military complex ramps up intelligence gathering and shores up security. DEFCON 4 represents “a readiness posture requiring increased intelligence watch and a continuing analysis of the political/military situation in the area of tension,” according to the original Joint Chiefs of Staff memo. The DEFCON 4 exercise term is “Double Take.” Most forces are usually at DEFCON 4 or 5.
DEFCON 3, Two steps from war, DEFCON 3 is generally seen as a standby level of alert, and it is the highest level of alert during peacetime. DEFCON 3 represents “a readiness posture that requires certain portions of the assigned forces to assume an increased readiness posture above that of normal readiness,” according to the Joint Chiefs memo. The DEFCON 3 exercise term is “Round House.” At less-tense points during the Cuban Missile Crisis, various parts of the U.S. military were at DEFCON 3. Over a decade later, in 1973, President Richard Nixon put the U.S. military on DEFCON 3 during the Yom Kippur War, as Moscow was reportedly preparing to launch an attack in the Middle East. “DEFCON 3 did not put the military on a war footing,” according to an Associated Press article. “It primarily meant leaves were canceled, men were ordered to return to their units and preparations were made to move them out if necessary.”
DEFCON 2, one step from nuclear war, is implemented when an enemy attack is expected. Troops are poised for combat at this time. DEFCON 2 represents “a readiness posture requiring a further increase in military force readiness which is less than maximum readiness; certain military deployments and selected civil actions may be necessary in consonance with the command’s mission,” according to the Joint Chiefs memo. During this stage, the U.S. will have “subs at sea and the bombers waiting on the runways,” as described by Roger Molander, a nuclear protest leader, in a 1984 column. Parts of the U.S. military were at DEFCON 2 during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. The DEFCON 2 exercise term is “Fast Pace.”
DEFCON 1, represents the highest level of readiness for nuclear war. DEFCON 1 would be reserved for when an attack is perceived as imminent or already under way – when the nation’s forces are engaged in full-on war mode. DEFCON 1 represents “a maximum readiness posture requiring the highest state of preparedness to execute war plans,” the Joint Chiefs memo says. The United States has never been at DEFCON 1 – at least not to the public’s knowledge – since the system began. The DEFCON 1 exercise term is “Cocked Pistol.”
Is the DEFCON Level Public? For security reasons, the U.S. military never publicly releases the current DEFCON level. In February 2022, a senior official with the U.S. Department of Defense confirmed that the federal government will not publicly reveal the current DEFCON level of the U.S. military. As of January 2023, the current DEFCON level is estimated to be at 3 due to the Russian conflict, according to OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) on the website DefconLevel.com.
What Is the Highest DEFCON Level Ever Reached? The U.S. elevated the Strategic Air Command to DEFCON 2 during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. It was the highest DEFCON level reached so far by the U.S. military. At a level unknown to most of the American public, the United States was on the brink of a nuclear war that would have destroyed civilization as we know it. This U.S. decision to escalate Strategic Air Command to DEFCON 2 was a response to a threat by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. “B-52 bombers were placed on continuous airborne alert, reservists were recalled and the U.S. nuclear arsenal was put on alert status.”
On 24 February 2022, the armed forces of the Russian Federation invaded and further invaded the territory of Ukraine in what President Putin defined as a Special Military Operation [SMO] then on 22 December 2022 redefined as a war. The initial invasion by the armed forces of the Russian Federation was in part from the territory of the Republic of Belarus.
The war between the Russian Federation and Ukraine did not commence on 24 February 2022. The roots began their trajectories on 20 February 2014 when the armed forces of the Russian Federation invaded the Crimean Peninsula and the area known as the Donbas Region (Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast).
From NATO (Article 5)
“In 1949, the primary aim of the North Atlantic Treaty – NATO’s founding treaty – was to create a pact of mutual assistance to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent. Every participating country agreed that this form of solidarity was at the heart of the Treaty, effectively making Article 5 on collective defence a key component of the Alliance. Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
This article is complemented by Article 6, which stipulates: “For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”
“With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances. This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.
At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.”
NOTE: In 2022, NATO adopted a new “strategic concept” which includes increased focus (and pointed language) about the Russian Federation and for the first time People’s Republic of China. Might NATO soon require a revised acronym? NAPTO for North Atlantic Pacific Treaty Organization.
Article 5 does not require any member to invoke a military response. The government of Ukraine presents that had Ukraine been a member of NATO prior to 2014 and again prior to 24 February 2022, the armed forces of the Russian Federation would not have invaded because Article 5 would have been dissuasive. The government of Ukraine may be correct. Important, however, to note NATO’s mandate is focused upon defensiveness rather than by force identifying opportunities to obtain new real estate for its portfolio.