Which was however updated over time and in essence upholding their initial assessment which was and might still be:
"(...)
But despite these uncertainties, Russian (and Chinese) military planners
should view these results with grave concern.
(...)
The U.S. arsenal today looks much as it would if a disarming strike
against Russia were still its dominant mission,” a scholar at the
Federation of American Scientists writes.
(...)
A group of RAND analysts agrees: “What the planned
force appears best suited to provide beyond the needs of traditional
deterrence is a preemptive counterforce capability against Russia and
China. Otherwise, the numbers and the operating procedures simply do
not add up.”
(...)".
In 2017 the authors demanded the US to increase its capabilities here. In 2020 with their book "The Myth of the Nuclear Revolution" they expanded on this issue.
So in theory US first strike is of course an option. (And for some illiterate suits in the Pentagon and some Kaganites in practice too, believing they would get away with this.)
What as a layman I would consider likely is taking out early warning which is one of RUs main problems still and provoke a mistake like in 1983. Which would turn RU into the world´s pariah.
However I doubt that RU would seriously use nukes unles it has lost its conventional capabilities.
p.s. super-fuze on US SSBN-missiles were a major factor in the Counterforce doctrin of the 2000s:
"Warhead “Super-Fuze” Increases Targeting Capability Of US SSBN
Enough of "Putin is pacing it." Is Russia able to smash Ukraine and take back what IS Russian, OR NOT? Putin has to evacuate villages IN RUSSIA? Is Russia able to finish this? This "pacing" only makes NATO paranoid and gets them to do more damage. Enough of this. Can Russia finish this OR NOT? This tedious "pacing" is getting NATO countries wanting to do ww3. Is that what Russia wants?
I actually disagree with Mark here, Ukraine doesn't need targeting data from NATO to hit the installation in Armavir, everyone knows where it is, and it's completely out in the open.
THIS shit is not to make it more expensive, but to make Russia more defenseless. Look, they did too much dithering due to whatever obscuring thought Putin has/had - he doesn't GET that he is dealing with hysterics who have been rendered totally subservient seeing that their societies are falling to complete ruin, not just due to the war they should not be involved with, but due to the INSANITY of the WEF and that gang.
I am pretty sure that Russia LOST THE CHANCE TO FINISH THIS WAR. Russia, due to dithering, LET THEM get to the fucking HEART of their defenses. They tried it before, the MINUTE they tried, Russia should have smashed. Putin had to apologize once. He needs to wake up and learn. If Russia has no defense against nuke threat, Russia will have to do a first nuke strike - an awful idea - or surrender. PUTIN IS FUCKING UP. THEY LET THIS SHIT GO ON NOW FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS. So, it's triggered, is Russia GONNA strike? They are sitting on this? I hope they don't use nukes.
"wow, we just struck their nuke defenses and they did not do a thing..... one more red line crossed and Russia did nothing....."
I suspect that the USA may not have been really aware of the attacks on the early warning system and it is a desperate attempt by Ukraine to escalate and pull the USA in..,.,.
Beginning in the early Aughts, a number of defense analysts—most prominently Keir A. Lieber, a professor at Georgetown, and Daryl G. Press, a professor at Dartmouth and a former consultant to both the Pentagon and the RAND Corporation—expressed concern about a convergence of strategic developments that have been under way since the dawn of America’s “unipolar moment.”
(...)
“What the planned force appears best suited to provide,” as a 2003 RAND report on the U.S. nuclear arsenal concluded, “is a preemptive counterforce capability against Russia and China. Otherwise, the numbers and the operating procedures simply do not add up.” This new nuclear posture would obviously unsettle military planners in Moscow, who had undertaken similar studies
(...)
Although no missile defense system could shield the United States from a full-scale nuclear attack, a system could plausibly defend against the very few missiles an adversary might have left after an effective U.S. counterforce strike.
(...)
The initiatives the United States has pursued—advances in anti-submarine and anti-satellite warfare, in missile accuracy and potency, and in wide-area remote sensing—have rendered Russia’s nuclear forces all the more vulnerable. In such circumstances, Moscow would be sorely tempted to buy deterrence at the cost of dispersing its nuclear forces, decentralizing its command-and-control systems, and implementing “launch on warning” policies. All such countermeasures could cause crises to escalate uncontrollably and trigger the unauthorized or accidental use of nuclear weapons. Paradoxically, mutually assured destruction provided decades of peace and stability. To remove the mutuality by cultivating overwhelming counterforce (i.e., first-strike) capabilities is—in another paradox—to court volatility and an increased likelihood of a grossly destructive nuclear exchange.
Gaza genocide and Ukrainian war. Same culprits.
thx!
Dear Faultlines team,
I suggest you read the by now a bit outdated study by Keir Lieber and Daryl Press from 2006:
"The End of MAD?"
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/end-mad-nuclear-dimension-us-primacy
Which was however updated over time and in essence upholding their initial assessment which was and might still be:
"(...)
But despite these uncertainties, Russian (and Chinese) military planners
should view these results with grave concern.
(...)
The U.S. arsenal today looks much as it would if a disarming strike
against Russia were still its dominant mission,” a scholar at the
Federation of American Scientists writes.
(...)
A group of RAND analysts agrees: “What the planned
force appears best suited to provide beyond the needs of traditional
deterrence is a preemptive counterforce capability against Russia and
China. Otherwise, the numbers and the operating procedures simply do
not add up.”
(...)".
In 2017 the authors demanded the US to increase its capabilities here. In 2020 with their book "The Myth of the Nuclear Revolution" they expanded on this issue.
So in theory US first strike is of course an option. (And for some illiterate suits in the Pentagon and some Kaganites in practice too, believing they would get away with this.)
What as a layman I would consider likely is taking out early warning which is one of RUs main problems still and provoke a mistake like in 1983. Which would turn RU into the world´s pariah.
However I doubt that RU would seriously use nukes unles it has lost its conventional capabilities.
p.s. super-fuze on US SSBN-missiles were a major factor in the Counterforce doctrin of the 2000s:
"Warhead “Super-Fuze” Increases Targeting Capability Of US SSBN
Force"
by Hans M. Kristensen
3.2.2017
https://fas.org/publication/super-fuze/
Q: Do the RUs have their own super-fuze by now?
Enough of "Putin is pacing it." Is Russia able to smash Ukraine and take back what IS Russian, OR NOT? Putin has to evacuate villages IN RUSSIA? Is Russia able to finish this? This "pacing" only makes NATO paranoid and gets them to do more damage. Enough of this. Can Russia finish this OR NOT? This tedious "pacing" is getting NATO countries wanting to do ww3. Is that what Russia wants?
I actually disagree with Mark here, Ukraine doesn't need targeting data from NATO to hit the installation in Armavir, everyone knows where it is, and it's completely out in the open.
THIS shit is not to make it more expensive, but to make Russia more defenseless. Look, they did too much dithering due to whatever obscuring thought Putin has/had - he doesn't GET that he is dealing with hysterics who have been rendered totally subservient seeing that their societies are falling to complete ruin, not just due to the war they should not be involved with, but due to the INSANITY of the WEF and that gang.
I am pretty sure that Russia LOST THE CHANCE TO FINISH THIS WAR. Russia, due to dithering, LET THEM get to the fucking HEART of their defenses. They tried it before, the MINUTE they tried, Russia should have smashed. Putin had to apologize once. He needs to wake up and learn. If Russia has no defense against nuke threat, Russia will have to do a first nuke strike - an awful idea - or surrender. PUTIN IS FUCKING UP. THEY LET THIS SHIT GO ON NOW FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS. So, it's triggered, is Russia GONNA strike? They are sitting on this? I hope they don't use nukes.
"wow, we just struck their nuke defenses and they did not do a thing..... one more red line crossed and Russia did nothing....."
PLEASE tell the interviewer to STFU!
He's not adding anything constructive to what Mark is TRYING to say, just keeps interrupting with inane comments.
After 5 minutes I could stand no more.
I'll try to find Mark on YouTube Russia Truth
I suspect that the USA may not have been really aware of the attacks on the early warning system and it is a desperate attempt by Ukraine to escalate and pull the USA in..,.,.
p.s.
Keir Lieber and Daryl Press were remarkably quoted in HARPERS MAGAZINE just one year ago (!) here:
"Why Are We in Ukraine?
On the dangers of American hubris"
by Benjamin Schwarz, Christopher Layne
https://harpers.org/archive/2023/06/why-are-we-in-ukraine/
https://archive.is/vp5BL
"(...)
Beginning in the early Aughts, a number of defense analysts—most prominently Keir A. Lieber, a professor at Georgetown, and Daryl G. Press, a professor at Dartmouth and a former consultant to both the Pentagon and the RAND Corporation—expressed concern about a convergence of strategic developments that have been under way since the dawn of America’s “unipolar moment.”
(...)
“What the planned force appears best suited to provide,” as a 2003 RAND report on the U.S. nuclear arsenal concluded, “is a preemptive counterforce capability against Russia and China. Otherwise, the numbers and the operating procedures simply do not add up.” This new nuclear posture would obviously unsettle military planners in Moscow, who had undertaken similar studies
(...)
Although no missile defense system could shield the United States from a full-scale nuclear attack, a system could plausibly defend against the very few missiles an adversary might have left after an effective U.S. counterforce strike.
(...)
The initiatives the United States has pursued—advances in anti-submarine and anti-satellite warfare, in missile accuracy and potency, and in wide-area remote sensing—have rendered Russia’s nuclear forces all the more vulnerable. In such circumstances, Moscow would be sorely tempted to buy deterrence at the cost of dispersing its nuclear forces, decentralizing its command-and-control systems, and implementing “launch on warning” policies. All such countermeasures could cause crises to escalate uncontrollably and trigger the unauthorized or accidental use of nuclear weapons. Paradoxically, mutually assured destruction provided decades of peace and stability. To remove the mutuality by cultivating overwhelming counterforce (i.e., first-strike) capabilities is—in another paradox—to court volatility and an increased likelihood of a grossly destructive nuclear exchange.
(...)".
Extremely disturbing plus the ghastly, horrific pictures coming from Rafah - truly monstrous.