So! That is not good, is it? No, it is not. I would have preferred clear American nuclear superiority. Do NOT have that! Russians may have nuclear superiority. Ms. Matthews did not render Mr. Stephens' claim "baseless." The figures from armscontrol.org do not render Stephens' claims baseless. Provide basis for Russian nuclear superiority. "Advantage," how about?
As I was writing that post I noticed the HUGE Russian "advantage" in tactical nukes: 2,000 to 500. That has to be tactical superiority, right? Whether advantage or superiority that would explain Russia's nuke rattling since their invasions of Ukraine. I remember, one Russian official tweeted Obama "We can reduce you to dust!" That tactical advantage would explain the Putins believing they could win a "limited" nuclear war with the U.S. and NATO in Europe. It would explain Putin saying on the documentary celebrating the "reunification" of Crimea with Russia that he was prepared to put Russia's nuclear forces on alert if the West intervened in the Russian takeover. All of that is not good at all!
After writing that last post I did a little research into which country, if either, has nuclear superiority. Did not find anything but did run across the concept of "compellence," which I didn't even know was a word much less a whole concept (didn't look right). In nuke-speak compellence is the opposite of deterrence, which word I heard of and which concept I was familiar with. This is how the Washington Post explained compellence just last December:
"For those who may be wondering, compellence is typically defined as a military threat designed to change the international status quo and is generally thought to be more difficult than deterrence, a military threat to preserve the status quo."
As I was writing that post I noticed the HUGE Russian "advantage" in tactical nukes: 2,000 to 500. That has to be tactical superiority, right? Whether advantage or superiority that would explain Russia's nuke rattling since their invasions of Ukraine. I remember, one Russian official tweeted Obama "We can reduce you to dust!" That tactical advantage would explain the Putins believing they could win a "limited" nuclear war with the U.S. and NATO in Europe. It would explain Putin saying on the documentary celebrating the "reunification" of Crimea with Russia that he was prepared to put Russia's nuclear forces on alert if the West intervened in the Russian takeover. All of that is not good at all!
After writing that last post I did a little research into which country, if either, has nuclear superiority. Did not find anything but did run across the concept of "compellence," which I didn't even know was a word much less a whole concept (didn't look right). In nuke-speak compellence is the opposite of deterrence, which word I heard of and which concept I was familiar with. This is how the Washington Post explained compellence just last December:
"For those who may be wondering, compellence is typically defined as a military threat designed to change the international status quo and is generally thought to be more difficult than deterrence, a military threat to preserve the status quo."
The Posties definition was dissonant with the common (my, anyway) understanding of "compel," to force someone else to do something or as another website put it "Compellence is a set of actions or positions that force an opponent to take some action desired by the initial actor." http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Compellence That I understand! Under that definition Russia's invasions in Ukraine could not be considered compellence with the US as referrent on accounta what did they compel us to do. Russia's nuke-rattling our way would be considered garden variety deterrence, it would seem to me, but, as I had never heard of "citizendium" and had heard of the Washington Post I'll go with the Posties.
The Posties article was not Russia-specific. It was general, it talked about Iran, Russia, but was on compellence the concept. Is what Russia did with its nuke-rattling over Ukraine considered to be compellence? I don't know! but of course that has never prevented me from acting as if I do so I will. Using the Posties' definition I don't think nuke-rattling over Crimea would (or "should," better put) be considered compellence. The "international status quo" was not at stake in Crimea or if anybody thinks it was a most static definition of status quo would be required. I take "international status quo" to be near synonymous with "balance of power." Russia's actions in Crimea did not alter the world balance of power, in my opinion, but I don't know nuffin.
Maybe we all could agree on this: THE U.S. BETTER RE-ATTAIN NUCLEAR SUPERIORITY! All in favor, raise your hands. Putin, raise your hand. Strategically we may be already, or perhaps at "parity," but tactically, we ain't neither. No way. We need a new arms race especially a new tactical arms race. I want the U.S. to have nuclear superiority over all and in any theater. I want that superiority to be vis-a-vis Russia and the whole world combined. I thought we had that. I really did. I don't know nuffin.
