‘It’s Time to Send
U.S. Troops to Ukraine’
James Rickards
James Rickards, the author of “The Road to Ruin” and other best-sellers
James Rickards, the author of “The Road to Ruin” and other best-sellers
www.DailyReckoning.com as a circular letter to its readers. It is also
Dear Reader,
It seems that more and more
commentators and political figures are calling for an increased U.S. role in
Ukraine, even the deployment of ground troops.
For example, Sen. Chris
Coons of Delaware recently argued, “We in Congress and the administration
[must] come to a common position about when we are willing to go the next step
and to send not just arms but troops to the aid in defense of Ukraine.”
Coons later walked back his
comments, but he’s not the only one who’s argued for sending troops to Ukraine.
Gen. Philip Breedlove,
former NATO supreme allied commander, has suggested that NATO should deploy
troops “into western Ukraine to carry out humanitarian missions and to set up a
forward arms supply base.”
Well, that’s fine, but
setting up an arms supply base in western Ukraine drags us right into the
middle of the conflict. Do they think Russia is going to just sit back and
watch NATO arms pour in to help Ukrainians kill more Russians?
Russian missiles have
already destroyed weapons supplied to Ukraine by the U.S. and its NATO allies.
What happens if Russia attacks an arms supply base and kills a number of
American soldiers?
The pressure would be to
attack Russian forces in retaliation. The U.S. and Russia would then be on the
escalation ladder (more on that below).
Oh, Stop Your Worrying!
Meanwhile, retired Gen. Ben
Hodges says, “It still does not feel like we are all-in to win. We have
exaggerated the potential for a so-called World War III to the point that we’re
making policy decisions based on an exaggerated fear.”
But maybe it’s not fear
that’s keeping us out of direct involvement in Ukraine, but prudence.
These people are gambling
that a conventional conflict with Russia wouldn’t escalate into nuclear war.
And maybe they’re right. Maybe it wouldn’t. But is that a risk we’re willing to
take?
Nuclear warfighting is not a
topic that has been much discussed in the past 30-odd years since the fall of
the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
It’s certainly not a topic
that nonexperts want to think about because the implications are both horrific
and existential. Still, no topic is more critical today.
‘Don’t Go There’
The theories around nuclear
warfighting were mostly developed in the 1950s and 1960s by scholars such as
Herman Kahn, Henry Kissinger and Albert Wohlstetter.
I read their work beginning
in the late 1960s as part of my studies in international relations and I
continued to study the topic through graduate school and beyond.
Scholarly approaches varied
in some respects related to doctrines of counterforce (aiming missiles at
missiles), countervalue (aiming missiles at cities), first-strike,
second-strike and mutual assured destruction.
But there’s one rule they
all agreed on: Don’t go there.
What this means is that
nuclear war is not a place where anyone begins an attack and it’s not a place
where anyone wants to end up. But it can happen anyway.
Climbing the Escalation Ladder
The process by which nuclear
war happens is called escalation. Two nuclear powers start out with a grievance
of some kind. The grievance may be played out using proxy powers such as
Vietnam in the 1960s and Afghanistan in the 2000s.
One side escalates the
conflict by doing something unexpected or extreme. The other side does not
stand still; they take an extreme retaliatory action. The first actor then
retaliates to the retaliation and so on. Now we have a dynamic where two sides
are climbing the escalation ladder.
Again, it’s important to
emphasize that neither side really wants a nuclear war, but once they start
climbing the ladder, it’s hard to stop. Eventually one side pushes the other so
far that the only response is to use nuclear weapons.
At that point, you’re no
longer just escalating; you’re at the brink of a nuclear launch.
Use It or Lose It
To make matters worse, the
other side sensing that their opponent may go nuclear will be under pressure to
go nuclear first in order to avoid being hit themselves. This then goes into
another branch of theory involving first-strike, second-strike, counterforce
and countervalue strategies, etc.
I don’t have to do a deep
dive on these theories in order to make the point that a nuclear war doesn’t
begin with a nuclear attack. It begins with small steps that spin out of
control.
Because of the war in
Ukraine, the world is closer to this apocalyptic state than at any time since
the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. That doesn’t mean both sides would launch
ICBMs at each other right out of the gate.
Any nuclear conflict would
likely begin with tactical nuclear weapons, which are lower-yield devices
designed to take out enemy troop formations, military bases, etc.
Russia has already warned
that it may use tactical nuclear weapons. The U.S. and NATO seem to believe
Russia is bluffing and it is therefore safe to continue escalating. Again,
maybe that’s true, but maybe it isn’t.
Unlike the U.S., which
regards any nuclear weapons deployment only as a last resort, Russian military
doctrine is much more open to the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the
battlefield.
And it’s believed that
Russia has about 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons, while the U.S. has under 250.
Given Russia’s conventional inferiority against the U.S. and NATO, it’s not
surprising that Russia fields so many tactical nukes.
To be clear, I’m not
predicting nuclear war. I’m simply pointing out the risks involved once both
sides get on the escalation ladder toward nuclear war.
It’s easier to get on than
to get off.
Stumbling Into War
Meanwhile, there are credible
reports that British special forces are in Ukraine instructing the Ukrainians
in sabotage and other special operations tactics. Similar reports are
circulating about U.S. and French special forces in Ukraine.
The U.S., U.K. and France
are all members of NATO. If any of those troops are killed or confront Russia
forces, it could be viewed as a war between Russia and NATO, which is tantamount
to World War III.
Russia is investigating the
claims. By itself, these special forces may seem like a small escalation. But
it’s exactly the kind of action that can escalate into something far worse.
The White House would do
well to study the same work that I learned in the late 1960s. Instead, it seems
like no one is home at the White House. We’re playing with fire as the
potential for escalation continues.
And unfortunately, so does
the potential march toward a nuclear war we’re told not to worry about.
I don’t know about you, but
I’m a little worried.
Regards,
Jim Rickards
for The Daily Reckoning
P.S. While I’m not
necessarily predicting nuclear war, I’m deeply worried about the stock market.
In these risky times, I advise you to pursue wealth-generating opportunities
outside of the stock market. (…)
000
James G. Rickards is the editor of Strategic Intelligence. He is an
American lawyer, economist, and investment banker with 35 years of experience
working in capital markets on Wall Street. He is the author of The New York Times bestsellers “Currency
Wars” and “The Death of Money”.
000
The above article is available at the
associated websites since 28 August 2022. It was published - under the title of
“The Automatic Dynamics of Escalation Toward a Nuclear War” - in the May 2022 edition of “The Aquarian Theosophist”, pp.
4-7.
000
Read More:
000
Helena Blavatsky
(photo) wrote these revealing words: “Deserve,
then desire”.
000
