By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Russia’s use of a MIRVed ballistic missile in Ukraine marks a dangerous escalation, representing the first-ever combat use of this technology. This departure from Cold War deterrence doctrine, where such missiles were designed to prevent nuclear war, now raises concerns about a “use them or lose them” scenario, incentivizing preemptive strikes. The high destructive capacity and vulnerability of MIRVs, even in conventional use, increases global instability. The proliferation of MIRV technology among various nations further exacerbates this risk, creating a more dangerous geopolitical environment.
Read the original article here
Russia’s recent use of a nuclear-capable missile in the ongoing conflict raises significant questions about the established norms of Cold War deterrence. While many missile systems possess the capacity to carry nuclear warheads, the specific missile employed and the context of its deployment represent a notable escalation. The fact that this weapon is capable of delivering a nuclear payload is undeniably concerning, but the discussion needs to move beyond the simple statement of its “nuclear capability.”
The claim that this event is “nothing new” because Russia has previously utilized other nuclear-capable missiles like the Kinzhal and Iskander is a simplification. The scale and strategic implications of the missile recently used differ significantly. While prior deployments of the Kinzhal and Iskander might be considered tactical, the weapon used in this recent instance represents a potentially greater threat, impacting the strategic calculation of escalation. The fact that similar missiles have been used before should not diminish the gravity of this new deployment.
The argument that many different weapons systems, even seemingly mundane objects like briefcases, are technically “nuclear-capable” misses the point. The focus should be on the specific weapon system used, its range, payload capacity, and the message it conveys regarding Russia’s willingness to potentially employ nuclear weapons. A briefcase’s theoretical nuclear capacity does not equate to the deployment of a sophisticated, long-range missile.
Concerns about the potential for miscalculation and unintended escalation are valid. The idea that this action is simply a “Putin temper tantrum” or a show of force, while perhaps partially true, overlooks the potential for severe consequences. The event undeniably raises the stakes in the conflict, shifting the global landscape dramatically. The possibility that Russia is running low on conventional missiles, forcing them to escalate, cannot be disregarded.
The suggestion that the West is provoking Russia by providing Ukraine with long- and medium-range missiles is a significant counterpoint. The narrative of the West “poking the bear” presents a simplified understanding of a highly complex situation. It overlooks the importance of considering Russia’s own initiation of hostilities and disregard for international norms. The conflict’s origins and the ongoing actions of all parties must be carefully considered. The use of such weapons should also be considered in relation to whether this is a deliberate escalation or an act of desperation due to dwindling resources.
The assertion that the event provided valuable intelligence for the West is intriguing, but the suggestion that this represents a significant counter-measure is an oversimplification. While gathering intelligence on the missile’s capabilities is valuable, this alone does not automatically solve the larger issue of deterring future use of such weapons. The idea that this action represents the “equivalent of beating up a stuffed animal,” while aiming for a provocative effect, ultimately understates the seriousness of the situation.
The debate surrounding whether this action constitutes a departure from Cold War doctrine is crucial. Cold War deterrence relied on mutually assured destruction (MAD), where the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war for all parties served as a deterrent. However, this recent deployment challenges the assumptions underlying MAD by suggesting a willingness to potentially use nuclear weapons in a more limited, yet highly impactful way. This opens up a Pandora’s box of implications. The West’s reactions, ranging from condemnation to measured responses, are indicative of the uncertainty and lack of a clear playbook for handling this new kind of escalation.
The intense debate sparked by this event underscores the complexities of modern warfare and the limitations of past doctrines in addressing the current geopolitical realities. The concerns raised – from miscalculation and escalation to the possibility of depleting conventional resources – are valid and require thorough consideration. This situation is a significant test of global diplomacy and crisis management capabilities. The focus needs to be less on simplistic interpretations of “nuclear capability” and more on the broader strategic implications of this unprecedented act.