Nuclear Deterrence in the Modern Age: Putin's Choices and Consequences

As geopolitical tensions continue to escalate, the conversation around nuclear deterrence has once again become central in international discourse. Many have pondered why Russian President Vladimir Putin would consider using nuclear weapons in the ongoing conflict with Ukraine, particularly in light of the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

Understanding Nuclear Weapons in the Modern Era

It is crucial to recognize that nuclear weapons are no longer the relics of the Cold War era. The technological advancements and the evolution of military strategy mean that today's nuclear weapons are far more sophisticated than those of the past. Modern nuclear devices can be delivered via supersonic missiles, which can travel near the edge of space, making them significantly more unpredictable and harder to intercept. This technical evolution plays a significant role in shaping the decision-making process behind their deployment.

The MAD Doctrine in Context

The concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) has been a cornerstone of nuclear strategy since the early days of the Cold War. This doctrine posits that the use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would result in the complete annihilation of both. However, this does not mean that both sides would actually initiate a full-scale nuclear exchange. The fear of total destruction serves as a powerful deterrent against such an outcome.

Vladimir Putin, as the leader of one of the world's major powers, would not be ignorant of this principle. If he were to consider dropping a nuclear bomb on Ukraine, it is precisely because he understands the catastrophic consequences for Russia. By doing so, he would risk his own country's destruction, a risk that he, as a rational actor, would likely avoid.

Tactical Nuclear Missiles: A Different Reality

However, Putin does not need to rely on MAD theory to justify the use of nuclear weapons. He possesses another strategic option: tactical nuclear missiles. These are designed to target specific military objectives, rather than being used in a general annihilation scenario. Tactical nuclear missiles offer a less devastating, yet still potentially devastating, option for a targeted strike.

It is important to note that Putin would likely not deploy a traditional intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) or a strategic nuclear weapon in this scenario. Instead, he may choose a more limited tactical nuclear device. This would still have significant consequences but would be more aligned with a battlefield strategy, rather than a catastrophic global event.

Western Countermeasures and Diplomatic Strategies

Despite the aforementioned concerns, the West is not paralyzed by fear of a full-scale nuclear exchange. Instead, they are pursuing a multifaceted approach to counter Putin’s actions. One of the primary strategies is to increase diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions against Russia. International alliances, including NATO, are bolstering their defense postures and providing support to Ukraine.

A significant aspect of the Western response is the declaration of Putin as an enemy of the people. This not only serves as a moral stance but also opens the door to punitive measures. For instance, the West might impose a multi-billion dollar bounty on Putin. This measure aims to destabilize the Putin administration from within, potentially leading to internal dissent and opposition.

Conclusion

The decision to use nuclear weapons is a complex and multifaceted issue, deeply rooted in international law, security strategies, and geopolitical dynamics. While the concept of MAD serves as a powerful deterrent, the use of tactical nuclear missiles provides a more nuanced and strategic option. The West, rather than being awestruck by the thought of nuclear war, is taking active steps to respond and mitigate the risks.