By Kris Osborn, President, Warrior
Russia is now flying nuclear-armed aircraft as part of combat readiness drills and preparing operations and staging maneuvers with low-yield tactical nuclear weapons, developments which appear aimed at intimidating the West into slowing down or stopping its support to Ukraine.
Nuclear threats have been a rather constant refrain from Putin as he routinely heightens the tone of his rhetoric with specific references to the possible use of nuclear, and tactical nuclear weapons; sure enough, a recent essay from the Associated Press said the Kremlin plans to conduct war drills with nuclear-capable Iskander short-range missiles. The prospect of deploying ground-fired tactical nuclear weapons is by no means new, yet these exercises do seem to incorporate a greater degree of maneuver and, perhaps of greatest significance, they include arming aircraft with tactical nuclear weapons.
The Russian units will “practice receiving nuclear weapons from storage and deploying them to designated launch areas. The maneuvers will also include air force units that will arm their warplanes with nuclear weapons and perform patrol flights,” the AP essay explains.
The Iskander is a high-speed, short-range ballistic missile capable of delivering conventional weapons such as cluster munitions as well as tactical nuclear warheads. Being able to travel at speeds up to Mach 5, it can prove difficult to intercept, a fact making its deployment as a tactical nuclear weapon extremely dangerous. Perhaps the largest concern is that a conventionally armed Iskander could easily be mistaken as a nuclear weapon, a scenario which could of course unintentionally start a nuclear engagement.
Russia has performed ground maneuvers with tactical nuclear weapons on several occasions and even moved them into Belarus. He is also well-known as someone consistently willing to make nuclear threats against Ukraine.
Russia’s large, longstanding and dangerous arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons was cited several years ago by Pentagon leaders who were explaining DoD’s rationale for adding new, lower-yield tactical nuclear weapons to the US stockpile.
Nuclear Posture Review
The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review called for the addition of a lower-yield Trident II D5 variant, which has already been built, as well as a Submarine Launched Cruise Missile armed with tactical nuclear capability. The intent, as described by former Sec. of Defense James Mattis, was not to lower the threshold to a possible nuclear engagement but instead In more recent years, the nuclear-capable SLCM was canceled, yet the lower-yield Trident was built quickly. The argument for why tactical nuclear weapons were added to the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review is, as explained to Congress several years ago, is to give Commanders the widest possible deterrence envelope with which to “prevent” the use of nuclear weapons of any kind. Mattis was quite clear about this when speaking to Congress years ago, as he explained that the introduction of lower-yield nuclear weapons might help drive Russia back to the negotiating table following its violations of the INF Treaty.
The risk of course introduced by lower yield nuclear weapons is, quite simply, that their existence might encourage leaders to envision a “winnable” nuclear exchange or somehow think there could be a “limited” nuclear war. Some deterrence theorists maintain that the US should take a clear bold stand and say that any use of nuclear weapons should, regardless of its severity or scope of destruction, be met with a guaranteed massive nuclear response. The intent here would be to ensure potential adversaries that there is nothing to be gained by firing limited or tactical nuclear weapons.
The other risk with tactical nuclear weapons could be that, once they are reintroduced into the arsenal in a clear, significant way, weapons developers might indeed be inclined to further expand tactical nuclear weapons integration. The Tomahawk missile, for example, was at one point a nuclear weapon and, for instance, emerging nuclear weapons such as the upgraded B-61 Mod 12 nuclear weapon have been engineered to introduce low and high-yield nuclear explosive options within an individual bomb. A single B-61 Mod 12 integrates the capabilities of previous variants into a single bomb, giving pilots the option for a penetrating bomb, area or proximity detonation and varying options for explosive yield.
Russia has performed ground maneuvers with tactical nuclear weapons on several occasions and even moved them into Belarus. He is also well-known as someone consistently willing to make nuclear threats against Ukraine. Has it been a bluff? A manipulation tactic to prevent NATO and the West from further supporting Ukraine with a new generation of weapons? Certainly Putin is a rational actor and by no means suicidal, he wants to hold onto power and he has to know that any significant use of nuclear weapons would result in his destruction. However, as a purely manipulative tactic, one could make the argument that his nuclear posturing is working or at least worked initially? Is this why the Pentagon was so slow to send GMLRS, tanks, Patriot missile batteries and now F-16s? Was there a real fear that sending these more capable weapons platforms might cause Putin to see it as an escalation and reason to fire nuclear weapons? If that was the case it appears to be less of a deterrent now, however Putin could surely be unpredictable and the nuclear threat is I’m sure taken very seriously.
Kris Osborn is the President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization and Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
