“Our country also has various means of destruction, and in some cases, they are more modern than those of NATO countries,” Russian President Vladimir Putin told his people on Wednesday, September 21. “If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will, of course, use all means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people,” he continued.
Putin accused the West of nuclear blackmail. And he demonstrated his determination: “This is not a bluff. And those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the weathervane can turn and point at them.”
“Since the start of the war, we have repeatedly heard such threats, which can be interpreted as a threat to use nuclear weapons,” retired Colonel Wolfgang Richter told DW.
The security policy expert says: “The idea behind this is probably the message to Western states: if you (the West) interfere in the war or even attack Russian territory, then the nuclear strike becomes more likely.”
Richter points to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, which envisages only two cases for the use of nuclear weapons: “First, if Russia itself is attacked by nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. And second, when the existence and survival of the Russian state is at stake.”
However, if territories of an attacked state are annexed and then declared Russian territory, such scenarios would have no substance under international law, Richter said.
In an interview with the BBC, Rose Gottemoeller did not rule out the possibility that Russia might actually deploy nuclear weapons. The former NATO deputy secretary-general Rose Gottemoller is less optimistic. In an interview with the BBC she described the Russians as unpredictable. “And in a way that could even involve the use of weapons of mass destruction,” Gottemoeller said.
Russia has the largest number of nuclear warheads in the world
Psychology of deterrence
With more than 6,300 warheads, Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. Within NATO, the United States has the largest nuclear force, with about 5,800 nuclear warheads. France is said to have almost 300 warheads, and the UK allegedly has about 215. Exact figures are not available as the nations in question keep a lot of information under wraps in connection with their nuclear programs.
Notwithstanding the US’s role as a nuclear umbrella, European countries could not prevent a nuclear attack with military means. The “umbrella” is based on the assumption that an adversary would not dare to attack NATO countries with nuclear weapons because that aggressor would have to expect a counterattack.
NATO’s nuclear powers pursue different concepts of deterrence. France and Britain rely on a so-called minimum deterrent. They do not assume an exchange of nuclear strikes over several days, they believe the ability to retaliate or to stop the opponent with a “final warning shot” (France) to be sufficient.
The US, on the other hand, relies on deterrence that includes nuclear weapons with reduced explosive power — US military planners envisage, at least theoretically, the possibility of “limited nuclear war.”
From a legal point of view, almost any use of a nuclear weapon, with the massive impact it has on civilians, violates international humanitarian law. Theoretically, conceivable exceptions include a limited nuclear attack on a warship at sea.
Taking a dive: French President Emmanuel Macron visits the Suffren nuclear submarine
The German contribution to deterrence
Germany’s contribution to Europe’s nuclear deterrence involves German Air Force Tornado fighter jets stationed at Büchel air base in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate. In an emergency, the jets, with German crews, would fly US nuclear weapons to the target. At least once a year, Bundeswehr pilots train dropping US nuclear bomb dummies.
The Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy also participate in NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements. Between 100 and 150 comparatively imprecise nuclear gravity bombs certified for Tornado aircraft are reportedly currently stored in Europe.
“The bombs are a relic of a bygone era whose military significance today is minor,” says Peter Rudolf, a political scientist at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in Berlin. In order to use them, however, the enemy’s air defenses would first have to be eliminated, which at the most seems conceivable in a major war.
German Tornado jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons are stationed at Büchel air base
Nuclear sharing concept
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz says the German contribution to the nuclear deterrent is not up for discussion, even if the nuclear sharing concept has quite a few critics in the governing coalition. Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht announced on Monday that Germany will replace some of its aging Tornado bomber jets with US-made F-35 fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
Immediately after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Scholz had held out the prospect of purchasing those planes.
Still regarded as an important political symbol today, nuclear sharing had far greater significance for Germany during the Cold War than it does today. In the days of the Warsaw Pact, Germany would have been situated at the heart of the battle in the event of an armed conflict with NATO. Nuclear sharing opened up the possibility for the German government in Bonn to exert at least limited influence on the alliance’s nuclear strategy.
Aging fleet: A German Tornado fighter plane
Who decides on the use of nuclear arms?
The US president is the first to decide on the use of the US nuclear weapons stored in Germany, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands. He or she would authorize the release of the bombs, and the country where they are deployed would have to agree to the bombs being dropped by its own fighter jets. Before such a deployment, the other NATO allies would presumably consult in the North Atlantic Council (NAC), NATO’s principal political decision-making body.
The deployment of the French nuclear force is decided solely by the French president, and the British prime minister makes the decision for the UK. The three decision-making centers for nuclear weapons are considered an element of deterrence, as they make it difficult for an opponent to calculate how NATO would react in the event of an attack.
Land-based cruise missile: In theory, Russia has many options for using nuclear arms
Nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war
Russian military doctrine is no stranger to the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Russia possesses such weapons, as does the US.
“First and foremost, the Russian threats have a political function,” says SWP expert Rudolf. “It is a message to the US not to interfere in Ukraine beyond a certain limit.”
Since the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, the Russian president has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons. This may mean so-called tactical nuclear weapons with relatively low explosive power. This could be scaled down so that a nuclear strike would unleash about one-fiftieth of the explosive power of a bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.
Total destruction: Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped on August 6,1945
But in an interview with DW, security expert Richter doubts that a nuclear strike could really happen. “If Russia were to break the nuclear taboo that has existed since 1945, the country would also be isolated and ostracized throughout the world. Putin would lose all allies, including China. This would have incalculable consequences for the political, economic, and social survival of the Russian Federation.”
Richter, therefore, considers a nuclear war with NATO rather unlikely. “Russia can’t win that, after all, but it would lead to mutual destruction. I think that much residual rationality is certainly still there in the Kremlin.”
And perhaps Vladimir Putin also remembers an unequivocal statement by the U.S. president. In a television interview with CBS a few days ago, Joe Biden forcefully warned Putin against using nuclear or chemical weapons, saying, “Don’t do it! It would change the face of war like nothing else since World War II.”
This article was originally written in German. It is an updated version of an article published earlier this year.
While you’re here: DW editors round up what is happening in Germany and the world in regular e-mail newsletters. You can sign up here for the weekly “Berlin Briefing” and more.
Article source: https://www.dw.com/en/the-return-of-the-nuclear-threat/a-61121925?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf