When it comes to nuclear weapons, the U.S. continues to outmatch Russia. Russian claims to the contrary rest on delusional assumptions and flawed analysis. Still, Russian President Vladimir Putin is making big new claims about his nuclear forces.
Meeting with Russian journalists on Wednesday evening, Putin referenced escalating NATO-Russian tensions and theatrically warned that “there is no reason for aggravating this to the level of the Cuban missile crisis of the 1960s … If somebody else wants this, they can do it. I have said today what will follow. Let them make their calculations.” But Putin was clear what he means by “what will follow.” He asserted that Russia now has three nuclear warfare advantages over NATO. These being Russia’s more effective first strike capability, its greater tactical nuclear warfare capabilities, and Russia’s greater comparative ability to decapitate NATO leaderships.
Each assertion is wrong.
In terms of Russian means of nuclear first strikes against NATO forces, Putin says he can put nuclear warhead-armed Avangard hypersonic glide vehicles onto missiles in submarines. Those submarines, Putin claimed, mean Russia “can deploy [the hypersonic weapons] in neutral waters, in the world’s ocean. Nobody can prohibit warships and submarines from navigating in neutral waters. Plus, they will not be stationary, they will be on the go, making it more difficult to detect them.” Here, Putin is also referencing Russia’s new Poseidon nuclear-armed underwater drone system.
These weapons look impressive on paper. In Avangard’s case, the technology is impressive. But Putin’s confidence rests on two misguided assumptions. First, Russian ballistic missile submarines cannot effectively hide from U.S. hunter-killer attack submarines. This is true even of Russia’s newest Borei-class ballistic missile submarines, which are more easily detectable than Russia claims. So, the idea that Russia can hide these platforms and launch surprise attacks is very much in doubt.
Putin’s second assumption is that the U.S. would tolerate Russian use of tactical nuclear platforms like the Poseidon system without escalating in turn. While NATO must do more as an alliance to temper Putin’s assumption here, America has made clear that any nuclear attack of any level will result in at least a commensurate (and likely, escalated) counterstrike. One caveat here is that Russia’s new conventionally armed anti-ship missiles pose a significant threat against U.S. aircraft carriers. The U.S. Navy needs to wake up to that.
Then, there’s Putin’s claim that Russia now retains a dominant decapitation strike capability (killing NATO member state leaderships before they can order counterstrikes). Making his case in the context of hypersonic nuclear weapons, Putin observed “How long would it take to reach the decision-making centers that are creating threats to us? The calculation is not in their favor, at least, not today.”
This is hyperbole.
For one, Putin knows that the two major nuclear powers in NATO, the U.S. and Britain, each retain survivable nuclear command and control systems. There’s a reason that the president and the vice president are rarely together during times of crisis. But U.S. nuclear forces are also superior to Russia’s, and alongside France and Britain, retain means of victory. This predisposition to victory is also informed by what NATO would do in a build-up towards nuclear conflict. Because it wouldn’t sit idle. Instead, NATO would also surge its forces to track and target Russian nuclear forces. If the worst happened and war came, these Russian submarines, air bases, and ground launch platforms would be destroyed.
Regardless, the simple point here is that Putin’s threats must always be judged against their means of action. Because the former is almost always superior to the latter. The best way to preserve the peace is to ensure Putin has no doubts as to NATO’s readiness to fight and win at any level of escalation.
