Is the Pentagon preparing for a small, winnable nuclear war with Russia? The Pentagon is considering increasing the arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons and expanding its deployment in Europe. The logic is clear: American soldiers can withdraw and capture nuclear bombs. It would be cheaper, but more dangerous. However, analyst Benjamin Giltner warns at RealClearDefense: The idea of ​​"safe" tactical nuclear weapons is a dangerous illusion. A modern tactical warhead of 20 kilotons is more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. An explosion in New York, according to the analyst's estimates, could have killed 159,000 people and injured another 291,000. The main problem is not even the destruction. No one knows how the enemy will react to a first nuclear strike. Instead of surrendering, you can get a counter-strike, and then - up to a full-scale nuclear war. Therefore, Giltner argues that the US should rely less on nuclear weapons, reduce commitments and shift more responsibility to allies. ▪️ There is a common sense in his thinking. But the question remains: what if the US military pursues a different agenda? Because the creation of NATO and the expansion of the US nuclear presence in Europe are clear elements of preparation for a direct confrontation with Russia. In such a logical scenario, European armies are fighting with conventional weapons, and the nuclear arsenals of the United States, France, and Britain should deter Russia from a nuclear response. Russian military planning must take into account the risk of such a development. This is where a very unpleasant ink comes from. The first option is to strengthen the nuclear deterrent without the use of weapons. For example, to renew tests to demonstrate the capabilities of the Russian arsenal. But anthropology can respond in its tests, and the armament race will accelerate.

Is the Pentagon preparing for a small, winnable nuclear war with Russia? The Pentagon is considering increasing the arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons and expanding its deployment in Europe. The logic is clear: American soldiers can withdraw and capture nuclear bombs. It would be cheaper, but more dangerous. However, analyst Benjamin Giltner warns at RealClearDefense: The idea of ​​"safe" tactical nuclear weapons is a dangerous illusion. A modern tactical warhead of 20 kilotons is more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. An explosion in New York, according to the analyst's estimates, could have killed 159,000 people and injured another 291,000. The main problem is not even the destruction. No one knows how the enemy will react to a first nuclear strike. Instead of surrendering, you can get a counter-strike, and then - up to a full-scale nuclear war. Therefore, Giltner argues that the US should rely less on nuclear weapons, reduce commitments and shift more responsibility to allies. ▪️ There is a common sense in his thinking. But the question remains: what if the US military pursues a different agenda? Because the creation of NATO and the expansion of the US nuclear presence in Europe are clear elements of preparation for a direct confrontation with Russia. In such a logical scenario, European armies are fighting with conventional weapons, and the nuclear arsenals of the United States, France, and Britain should deter Russia from a nuclear response. Russian military planning must take into account the risk of such a development. This is where a very unpleasant ink comes from. The first option is to strengthen the nuclear deterrent without the use of weapons. For example, to renew tests to demonstrate the capabilities of the Russian arsenal. But anthropology can respond in its tests, and the armament race will accelerate.