Failed Deterrence

[uk 75]

The Cold War in retrospect seems almost an oasis of reasonable behaviour. From 1945 to 1991 the US and Soviet Union only ratcheted up deliberately to threaten nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and the October 1973 Arab Israel war. There were other occasions (notably Able Archer 1983) when one side feared a possible war.

In contrast we now live in a world where Russia and N Korea threaten nuclear war almost monthy and China and Iran make it clear that they are not detered by US nuclear weapons from taking military action, notably.against Taiwan.

Many in the West equate Ukraine to the Czech crisis in 1938 and urge the West to prepare for lengthy confrontation and even conventional war against Russia and China.

However, the West has relied for so long on threatening to use nuclear weapons itself in any general war that it is hard to see how US and UK governments can persuade voters that deterrence is not enough.

It is true that the Reagan administration did succeed in increasing NATO readiness to resist Soviet aggression with conventional forces from days to weeks and even months. But it also improved nuclear forces at various levels to maintain deterrence.

I make these points because younger, mainly US, posters here seem to regard war as now inevitable.

 

[sferrin]

Still doesn't seem as hot as the height of the Cold War.

 

[uk 75]

Still doesn't seem as hot as the height of the Cold War.

I understand what you mean. Nuclear weapons and risks were never out of the news. Most people in the West feared a nuclear war.
But, looking back the leaders were far more responsible and better informed than we see today. Even though we have four regimes seemingly relaxed about nuclear war media coverage and popular discussion in the West is much less than during the Cold War.

 

[sferrin]

I understand what you mean. Nuclear weapons and risks were never out of the news. Most people in the West feared a nuclear war.
But, looking back the leaders were far more responsible and better informed than we see today. Even though we have four regimes seemingly relaxed about nuclear war media coverage and popular discussion in the West is much less than during the Cold War.

There's also the constant bombardment by the "if it bleeds it leads" media 24/7 right to your phone, computer, television, that we didn't have then. Also consider how many different models of nuclear bombs and warheads were in production back then compared to now. (Granted, China might be churning them out at higher rates but the US or Russia? Not even close.)

 

[uk 75]

There's also the constant bombardment by the "if it bleeds it leads" media 24/7 right to your phone, computer, television, that we didn't have then. Also consider how many different models of nuclear bombs and warheads were in production back then compared to now. (Granted, China might be churning them out at higher rates but the US or Russia? Not even close.)

But there were no leaders as casual about war as the present leaders in Russia, China, N Korea and Iran.One might add that the West has naive and poorly trained leaders compared with the WW2 experience of Cold War leaders.

 

[GTX]

But there were no leaders as casual about war as the present leaders in Russia, China, N Korea and Iran.One might add that the West has naive and poorly trained leaders compared with the WW2 experience of Cold War leaders.

I think you touch upon one very relevant point there: That we are currently witnessing a generation of leaders who have never known, at a personal level, major war. Thus they don't have the intimate experience and dare I say fear of. This includes even those who were in non-direct combat roles or even political officer roles if you want to look at the Soviet leaders. For them war was something real not theoretical ...or dare I say, something only seen on TVs. Thus they had a greater appreciation of.

I would also argue that on the Russian and Nth Korean sides you are currently seeing a lot of 'sabre rattling' and I question if this is more because they are bluffing because this is the only card they have to play and they also know (and we have seen this validated) that many in the west are either too naive or willing to play into this and allow themselves to be rattled.

This is not to down play or ignore the risks if things ultimately go that way but I suspect it won't.

 

[Desertfox]

The US did threaten nuclear war multiple times vs China.

An additional point to consider is that both North Korea and Russia are now in a significantly inferior position with respect to their conventional forces and have to depend on their nukes significantly more.

 

[Dilandu]

But there were no leaders as casual about war as the present leaders in Russia, China, N Korea and Iran.One might add that the West has naive and poorly trained leaders compared with the WW2 experience of Cold War leaders.

Excuse me, who gave everyone the notion that war is something casual, something that may be initiated on a whim of US president? Who started the concept of "might makes right", bombing and invading other nations without UN approval just because Washington decided "screw the rules, i think it's right thing to do"? Newsflash: it was United States, who eagerly dismantled the existing order in favor of "we would do as we please" and created precedents of wars started out of mere accusations.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Excuse me, who gave everyone the notion that war is something casual, something that may be initiated on a whim of US president?

When has *that* ever happened???

 

[edwest4]

With the advent of ICBM deployment by the Soviets and U.S. in 1959, the stakes were raised. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was expertly handled by President Kennedy. Some members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were urging attacking the Soviet Union. They believed conflict was inevitable anyway. Kennedy ignored their suggestion. The problem right after the end of World War II was the reappearance of the OSS as the CIA. Starting with Eisenhower and his concern about U-2 overflights of Russia being seen as an act of war. The CIA ignored him and Presidents after. They had the intelligence and the means to act on it. The CIA trained the Cuban exiles for the Bay of Pigs invasion in the U.S. Kennedy had vowed to smash them into a thousand pieces. It couldn't be done. As the Vietnam War was winding down in 1973, so did the U.S. space program and various military projects. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan became President that there was a new urgency regarding developing more advanced weapon systems. Referred to as Star Wars, the goal was to use new developments to increase the pressure on the Soviets. It worked. The Soviet Union shrank to become the Russian Federation.

Vladimir Putin was born in 1952, so he lived through most of the Cold War. His KGB background means he understands intelligence and foreign affairs. The leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, was born somewhere in the early 1980s, so he is a newcomer. The goal of increasing the range of a rocket capable of hitting targets in the U.S. means he is either imbalanced or presenting a necessary show of force to show the people that North Korea can be defended. China is being flooded by U.S. dollars and is being called a threat at the same time. They could not have gotten to the Moon without those dollars.

The situation in the Ukraine is hidden. A glimpse here and there but that's all. In order to keep the Russians in the dark, it must be this way. I recall hearing about the U.S. attack on Iraq on the radio in 2003, but after it started. Secrecy is required.

The current threat environment seems manageable. Both North Korea and Iran are relatively small and I suspect, know that massive retaliation from the U.S. would occur in a number of already defined scenarios. So, North Korea launches a rocket headed for Seattle or Los Angeles, what does the U.S. do? Or Iran launches a large rocket, perhaps nuclear, against Israel, then what? I'm sure these scenarios have been worked out and subtle hints of what would happen have been conveyed to the leaders of these countries.

People who are 30 or younger are faced with an internet filled with bad examples regarding how to think and how to behave. This also includes good information mixed with bad and deliberately wrong information. This has also damaged their ability to deal with people face to face and even on the phone. They can text someone but may never actually interact with anyone on a level necessary for normal human interaction.

 

[GTX]

People who are 30 or younger are faced with an internet filled with bad examples regarding how to think and how to behave. This also includes good information mixed with bad and deliberately wrong information. This has also damaged their ability to deal with people face to face and even on the phone. They can text someone but may never actually interact with anyone on a level necessary for normal human interaction.

Agree there. Sadly, it's not just less than 30yr olds either. And don't get me started on the whole perils/dangers/false expectations etc etc of modern so-called social media.

 

[paralay]

With the advent of ICBM deployment by the Soviets and U.S. in 1959, the stakes were raised. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was expertly handled by President Kennedy.

What a wonderful man! First, he created the reasons for the escalation of nuclear war, and then saved the World from cataclysm

In 1961, by order of US President John F. Kennedy, 15 American PGM-19 Jupiter medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads were deployed near the Turkish city of Izmir.The range of these missiles was 2,400 kilometers, which allowed them to hit the European part of the USSR, including Moscow.The main advantage of medium-range missiles is the minimum time to reach the target. The flight time of the American missiles from Turkey was less than 10 minutes. Thus, the Soviet side's ability to take countermeasures in the event of a strike was reduced to a minimum.The already shaky military parity has been violated. The indignation of the Soviet side was not taken into account by official Washington.

 

[uk 75]

I see the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia as marking the change from the generation of politicians like G Bush Snr who had served in WW2 or at least lived through it like R Reagan and M Thatcher to US Presidents from Clinton onward who had no such experience.
In the UK Jim Callaghan was the last PM to have actually served in WW2. None of his successors had any experience of military or even government service in wartime. Fortunately the late Queen had some.
Helmut Schmidt in Germany had a very different approach to defence politics from his successors who had no military service.
Putin managed to avoid serving with the Soviet armed forces and panicked when faced with peaceful East German demonstrators in Dresden.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I definitely agree that there's a lack of respect for just what nukes do among the political class. Putin didn't see Hiroshima or Nagasaki before they were rebuilt, for example, where one bomb was one deleted city.

I'm very afraid that it's going to take another nuked city or two before the world gets it again. Open bets as to whether it's Taipei, Pyongyang, Tehran, or Severodinsk.

 

[Justo Miranda]

In my opinion, the Cold War entered a phase more propagandistic than military when Soviet ideologues decided to challenge their Western adversaries by starting a space race that they hoped to win thanks to the help of captured German scientists.

When the great media successes Sputnik, Laika Gagarin and Tereskhova were eclipsed by the Apollo program, the Soviets, in order to avoid international discredit and the loss of ideological clients, reacted by creating a series of international organizations with the aim of slowing down the economic and technological development of the West in the medium and long term: attacks on Israel to raise oil prices, Wars and revolutions in the Third World to raise the prices of raw materials, environmental organizations to criminalize nuclear research, politicization of universities to influence young people with antimilitarist ideas and obscene use of freedom of information for propaganda purposes in the media.

In my opinion, what the Soviet ideologues wanted was to stop the development of their adversaries because they were convinced that the Soviet system was better and only needed time to overcome capitalism.

But time passed, the West did not sink and reality prevailed.

Malthus did not foresee the creation of contraceptive means, Yamamoto did not foresee the creation of the atomic bomb, Korolev did not foresee NASA's use of microelectronics....who is making a mistake now due to lack of foresight in the capabilities of technological innovation?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yamamoto did not foresee the creation of the atomic bomb,

He didn't need to. He knew that he'd only have 6-12 months unchallenged in the Pacific after Pearl Harbor. The US had so many resources available to it in the 1930s and 40s...

 

[Justo Miranda]

He didn't need to. He knew that he'd only have 6-12 months unchallenged in the Pacific after Pearl Harbor. The US had so many resources available to it in the 1930s and 40s...

Yamamoto thought in terms of battleships, like all admirals of his generation, he had difficulty thinking of other types of weapons as light as airplanes. These guys were thinking in terms of tons and calibers. In the future, perhaps the Americans would surpass them, but by the time of Pearl Harbor the Japanese had everything bigger.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Why do I have the feeling you actually mean "very slightly to the right of center" content?

Overton window - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dilandu]

What a wonderful man! First, he created the reasons for the escalation of nuclear war, and then saved the World from cataclysm

In defense of Kennedy, he sincerely believed in the "missile gap" and thought that USSR in early 1960s have much more ICBM's than USA (actually the opposite was true - the USSR have only a few of clumsy R-7A missiles, while USA were mass-deploying SM-65 Atlas. But Khrushev bluff about Soviet missile arsenals worked way too good)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yamamoto thought in terms of battleships, like all admirals of his generation, he had difficulty thinking of other types of weapons as light as airplanes. These guys were thinking in terms of tons and calibers. In the future, perhaps the Americans would surpass them, but by the time of Pearl Harbor the Japanese had everything bigger.

He knew that the Americans would surpass Japan within 6 months to a year.

 

[Justo Miranda]

In defense of Kennedy, he sincerely believed in the "missile gap" and thought that USSR in early 1960s have much more ICBM's than USA (actually the opposite was true - the USSR have only a few of clumsy R-7A missiles, while USA were mass-deploying SM-65 Atlas. But Khrushev bluff about Soviet missile arsenals worked way too good)

In my opinion, the foreign policy of the Kennedy administration was disastrous for the world, its serious miscalculations still endure and its legacy consisted of leaving its country involved in an absurd space race, sowing distrust between its European and Turkish allies demonstrating an indecision that could have killed us all and destroyed the future of three generations of Cubans who deserved a better life, entrusting the CIA with an impossible operation.

The respect due to him because of his death should not influence the historical analysis of his institutional acts.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Removed off-topic posts, including my own.

 

[edwest4]

What a wonderful man! First, he created the reasons for the escalation of nuclear war, and then saved the World from cataclysm

Who was President Kennedy getting advice from? The CIA. Who was training Cuban exiles for the Bay of Pigs invasion? The CIA. Once Kennedy realized that a certain Agency had lied to him, he vowed to smash it into a thousand pieces. He failed.

President Eisenhower was also lied to regarding U-2 flights. His concern that the Soviets would consider such overflights during peacetime an act of war was brushed off by the CIA. He was led to believe that everything would be fine. He told those people that overflights should be authorized by him. They could care less. The flight in 1960 had not been authorized by the President. The Soviets now had one of our U-2 pilots.

 

[edwest4]

The politicians don't want to die either. I fail to see the current threat from North Korea, for example. If I was in charge, I would pass along the following: "Hello? North Korea? If you do the following, we will destroy your military assets using conventional weapons." I would then pass that along to the Chinese and Russians as a fair warning. If they can't keep their buddy under control then he risks losing everything. The same with Iran.

In 1965, Robert McNamara determined how many nuclear weapons would be required to destroy Moscow and reduce the Russian population. I doubt that has changed. For China, a large population but thanks to satellite reconnaissance, all of the important targets have been marked. I believe the Chinese are aware of that.

On a side note: An effective attack on Taiwan that includes deploying ground troops can only happen during two months out of the year.

 

[GTX]

I often find the Nth Korean situation one of "look at me...look at me..."

 

[Byeman]

In defense of Kennedy, he sincerely believed in the "missile gap" and thought that USSR in early 1960s have much more ICBM's than USA (actually the opposite was true - the USSR have only a few of clumsy R-7A missiles, while USA were mass-deploying SM-65 Atlas. But Khrushev bluff about Soviet missile arsenals worked way too good)

No, you can say early 1960 but not early 1960's. Kennedy was briefed on the non-existence of a missile during his campaign for president. He continued with the missile gap rhetoric to his advantage until the election (November 1960) and then said no more of it.

 

[Byeman]

In my opinion, the foreign policy of the Kennedy administration was disastrous for the world, its serious miscalculations still endure and its legacy consisted of leaving its country involved in an absurd space race,

that is wrong on many levels.
a. Kennedy didn't want a race. He even offered to do a joint mission with the Soviets.
b. It was Johnson that kept the foot on the accelerator.
c. The space race (technology race) led to the demise of the USSR.

 

[Byeman]

President Eisenhower was also lied to regarding U-2 flights. His concern that the Soviets would consider such overflights during peacetime an act of war was brushed off by the CIA. He was led to believe that everything would be fine. He told those people that overflights should be authorized by him. They could care less. The flight in 1960 had not been authorized by the President. The Soviets now had one of our U-2 pilots.

That is wrong. Ike authorized each U-2 overflight individually.

https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/research/online-documents/u2-incident/4-25-60-mfr.pdf

 

[edwest4]

that is wrong on many levels.
a. Kennedy didn't want a race. He even offered to do a joint mission with the Soviets.
b. It was Johnson that kept the foot on the accelerator.
c. The space race (technology race) led to the demise of the USSR.

President Kennedy signed off on the Bay of Pigs but the plan to attack Castro's jets was called off at the last minute by McGeorge Bundy. He had no authority to do so. That left the invaders pinned down by strafing which allowed Cuban regular troops to capture them.

Kennedy had lost all trust in the CIA. That's why he sent General Taylor and Robert McNamara to Vietnam to get their assessment of what was happening there. When they returned to the White House with their report, Kennedy issued National Security Action Memorandum #263 in October, 1963. This mandated the withdrawal of all U.S. troops and advisors from Vietnam by 1965. In the meantime, the CIA was receiving reports that the Chinese were working on their first atomic bomb. The CIA decided that a permanent military presence in the South was required. As with Korea, the Communists would keep the North and the U.S. would establish a forward base of operations in the South. Kennedy stood in the way of this.

As it turned out, the Chinese detonated their first atomic bomb in 1964. U.S. ground troops land in 1965. President Johnson was misled by manipulated intelligence provided by the NSA. They claimed U.S. Navy ships were fired on in the Gulf of Tonkin. That did not happen.

 

[edwest4]

That is wrong. Ike authorized each U-2 overflight individually.

https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/research/online-documents/u2-incident/4-25-60-mfr.pdf

In 1960, President Eisenhower was scheduled to go to Moscow. In 1959, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev had visited the White House. Eisenhower talked with him about relations between the two countries and about peace. Eisenhower ordered no U-2 flights before the meeting. His concerns about it being vulnerable to both Russian antiaircraft defenses and fighters did not go away. The CIA sent one up anyway. The Powers U-2 had not been shot down. In testimony before the U.S. Senate, Allen Dulles offered what he called a theory about the aircraft. At altitude (100,00 feet), the engine could suffer a flame-out. A container holding liquid hydrogen was carried to assist in restarting it. It turns out that container had not been filled prior to takeoff. A published photo showing the Powers U-2 on the ground shows breaks in the fuselage consistent with a low-speed descent.

 

[Dilandu]

The politicians don't want to die either. I fail to see the current threat from North Korea, for example. If I was in charge, I would pass along the following: "Hello? North Korea? If you do the following, we will destroy your military assets using conventional weapons." I would then pass that along to the Chinese and Russians as a fair warning. If they can't keep their buddy under control then he risks losing everything. The same with Iran.

Facepalm. You somehow utterly failed to realize, that North Korea developed its nuclear deterrence capabilities SPECIFICALLY aginst the situation like "we will destroy your military assets using conventional weapons". So you basically would be telling North Koreans that they were completely right in every assumption, and they must double on nuclear deterrence program because Americans are threatening to attack them. Yeah, "good plan".

 

[Dilandu]

The Powers U-2 had not been shot down.

Tell the authors of this story that drugs are BAD, and he should reduce weed consumption.

 

[edwest4]

Facepalm. You somehow utterly failed to realize, that North Korea developed its nuclear deterrence capabilities SPECIFICALLY aginst the situation like "we will destroy your military assets using conventional weapons". So you basically would be telling North Koreans that they were completely right in every assumption, and they must double on nuclear deterrence program because Americans are threatening to attack them. Yeah, "good plan".

Where are they going to get the money?

 

[Byeman]

In 1960, President Eisenhower was scheduled to go to Moscow. In 1959, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev had visited the White House. Eisenhower talked with him about relations between the two countries and about peace. Eisenhower ordered no U-2 flights before the meeting. His concerns about it being vulnerable to both Russian antiaircraft defenses and fighters did not go away. The CIA sent one up anyway. The Powers U-2 had not been shot down. In testimony before the U.S. Senate, Allen Dulles offered what he called a theory about the aircraft. At altitude (100,00 feet), the engine could suffer a flame-out. A container holding liquid hydrogen was carried to assist in restarting it. It turns out that container had not been filled prior to takeoff. A published photo showing the Powers U-2 on the ground shows breaks in the fuselage consistent with a low-speed descent.

Many holes in your post
a. There was no liquid hydrogen used on the U-2
b. the May 1st was specifically approved by Ike as shown in the source I posted.
c. He was shot down.
d. Where are your sources?

 

[Byeman]

President Kennedy signed off on the Bay of Pigs but the plan to attack Castro's jets was called off at the last minute by McGeorge Bundy. He had no authority to do so. That left the invaders pinned down by strafing which allowed Cuban regular troops to capture them.

Kennedy had lost all trust in the CIA. That's why he sent General Taylor and Robert McNamara to Vietnam to get their assessment of what was happening there. When they returned to the White House with their report, Kennedy issued National Security Action Memorandum #263 in October, 1963. This mandated the withdrawal of all U.S. troops and advisors from Vietnam by 1965. In the meantime, the CIA was receiving reports that the Chinese were working on their first atomic bomb. The CIA decided that a permanent military presence in the South was required. As with Korea, the Communists would keep the North and the U.S. would establish a forward base of operations in the South. Kennedy stood in the way of this.

As it turned out, the Chinese detonated their first atomic bomb in 1964. U.S. ground troops land in 1965. President Johnson was misled by manipulated intelligence provided by the NSA. They claimed U.S. Navy ships were fired on in the Gulf of Tonkin. That did not happen.

Where are your sources for these alternate histories?

 

[Dilandu]

Where are they going to get the money?

From the same source as USA; they print them. Yes, North Korean money did not have much value outside the country, but they are perfectly good for their internal economy. Considering that North Korea already done the hardest and most costly part of deterrence - they have nuclear warheads and ICBM production up and running - they could increase their nuclear capabilities quite efficiently now.

 

[Byeman]

From the same source as USA; they print them. Yes, North Korean money did not have much value outside the country, but they are perfectly good for their internal economy. Considering that North Korea already done the hardest and most costly part of deterrence - they have nuclear warheads and ICBM production up and running - they could increase their nuclear capabilities quite efficiently now.

not really, they still have low stockpiles of certain materials

 

[Dilandu]

not really, they still have low stockpiles of certain materials

Probably, but the size of their stockpiles could not be correctly estimated. They already demonstrated that North Korean missile program is much more advanced than US anticipated - with solid-fuel road-mobile ICBM's (probably MRVed) being deployed - so it's reasonable to assume that they could produce credible enough deterrence, especially if provoked, like Edwest4 suggested to.

 

[edwest4]

Where are your sources for these alternate histories?

My source is Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty who served in the Pentagon during the period. He wrote the book, The Secret Team, and JFK. The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy.

It's all there.

 

[edwest4]

From the same source as USA; they print them. Yes, North Korean money did not have much value outside the country, but they are perfectly good for their internal economy. Considering that North Korea already done the hardest and most costly part of deterrence - they have nuclear warheads and ICBM production up and running - they could increase their nuclear capabilities quite efficiently now.

Even if they did, what next? Attack the United States?