How many nukes do you need, really?
I mean, America can lose 5,000 of its 5,550 nukes and still have plenty left over to destroy the world.
But never mind that. Think about the message this sends.
It communicates that you can be powerful without overwhelming nuclear capabilities. It also calls Putin’s repeated nuclear bluffs.
If successful, it tells the world it’s possible to de-escalate a tense situation between nuclear powers.
Most of all, it turns the world’s attention squarely on Russia’s increasingly desperate war, and not in a good way.
The timing is right, too. Like China and India, countries that have so far been neutral are becoming increasingly critical of Putin’s nuclear rhetoric. Such a unilateral step on the part of the US might just push them into tacit opposition of his war.
When that happens, Russia stands more or less alone in its aggressive stance towards Ukraine.
A High Risk Gambit
It’s a high risk strategy, as it is uncertain how the Russian regime will react to increased global pressure, in addition to its already failing conventional war.
Will Putin back down? Can he even back down? Can the regime maintain its composure as the walls collapse around it?
Recent actions, regime rhetoric, and approved media opinions emanating from Moscow indicate a resounding “no” to these questions.
The intuitive thing to do would be to continue to escalate, in hopes of deterring the regime from trying anything stupid, like detonating a nuclear device.
Yet sometimes a counterintuitive option is preferable. Especially when the results of climbing the ladder of nuclear escalation are too inevitable to contemplate.
Mr Biden, tear down those nukes!
