Nuclear weapons, once a nation’s presumed weapon of last resort, could become a feature of modern warfare. But their use doesn’t necessarily spell the end of the world. So says one alarming section of a new government intelligence forecast, which predicts that future conflicts among nations “will most likely involve multiple forms of warfare,” of which nuclear is one.
Nukes are seen not as a doomsday weapon for utterly vanquishing an adversary, but rather another tool in a nation’s arsenal, one that would be used in concert with conventional military capabilities—ground forces, aircraft, naval forces, etc. The report worries most that Russia would try this approach, but it also finds that India and Pakistan could resort to a nuclear exchange as part of a broader war. China, North Korea and the Middle East are on the intelligence community’s nuclear radar, too, and the United States fears the regional proliferation of nuclear weapons should Iran build a weapon of its own.
The government report isn’t the only recent forecast to have raised the nuclear specter. The noted defense analyst Andrew Krepinevich has a new paper in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs that urges the U.S. Defense Department to prepare for potential nuclear war. (emphases added)
Despite the desire of many powers in the developed world to reduce their reliance on nuclear weapons or even eliminate them entirely, such weapons retain their popularity. Russia’s military doctrine has increased the country’s reliance on nuclear weapons to help offset its weak conventional forces. China retains a strong nuclear force. Pakistan is building additional nuclear reactors to produce fissile material for its expanding nuclear arsenal to offset India’s advantage in conventional forces. Iran is driving to a nuclear capability, which could spur an additional proliferation cascade in the Middle East. In light of all this, the Defense Department needs to undertake a comprehensive nuclear posture review that addresses multiple plausible contingencies of nuclear use, coming up with practical policies for how such uses might be prevented or, failing that, how a nuclear conflict might be terminated on acceptable terms once begun.
As a child of the twilight of the Cold War, whose imagination of a nuclear war was largely shaped by the apocalyptic made-for-TV movie The Day After, it’s hard for me to imagine a nuclear conflict being ended on any kind of terms, much less acceptable ones. But apparently it’s the best estimate of our intelligence agencies that a nuclear battle might not—and need not—end in global conflagration. And the countries that dare deploy these weapons might even avoid using them to kill people, the new intelligence report finds, at least not directly.
Countries with nuclear weapons could be tempted to explode a nuclear device to wipe out their opponent’s ability to maintain [communications] connectivity. Many current systems cannot operate in a hostile electromagnetic or radiated environment. In this instance, nuclear first use would not be used to harm humans as much as to deny opponents use of electronic systems. Space, ocean, and near coastal bottlenecks could be areas of nuclear use with little human collateral damage.
The Nuclear Option
US intelligence warns to prepare for atomic battles among nations.
Nuclear weapons, once a nation’s presumed weapon of last resort, could become a feature of modern warfare. But their use doesn’t necessarily spell the end of the world. So says one alarming section of a new government intelligence forecast, which predicts that future conflicts among nations “will most likely involve multiple forms of warfare,” of which nuclear is one.
As a child of the twilight of the Cold War, whose imagination of a nuclear war was largely shaped by the apocalyptic made-for-TV movie The Day After, it’s hard for me to imagine a nuclear conflict being ended on any kind of terms, much less acceptable ones. But apparently it’s the best estimate of our intelligence agencies that a nuclear battle might not—and need not—end in global conflagration. And the countries that dare deploy these weapons might even avoid using them to kill people, the new intelligence report finds, at least not directly.
Most Popular in News & Politics
Rock Creek Isn’t Safe to Swim In. RFK Jr. Did It Anyway.
Washington DC’s 500 Most Influential People of 2025
Jeanine Pirro: 5 Things to Know About the Fox News Host Trump Picked to Be DC’s Top Prosecutor
The Devastating Story of Washington’s Peeping-Tom Rabbi
Trump Fires Librarian of Congress, Fox News Host to Be Next Top DC Prosecutor, Possibly Rabid Actual Fox Terrorizes Arlington
Washingtonian Magazine
May Issue: 52 Perfect Saturdays
View IssueSubscribe
Follow Us on Social
Follow Us on Social
Related
DC Might Be Getting a Watergate Museum
DC-Area Universities Are Offering Trump Classes This Fall
Viral DC-Area Food Truck Flavor Hive Has It in the Bag
Slugging Makes a Comeback for DC Area Commuters
More from News & Politics
Ed Martin Asks Judge to Investigate Lawyer Investigating Him, RFK Jr. Couldn’t Identify Office Named for His Aunt, and We Found Some Terrific Dominican Food
Federal Agents Arrest 189 in DC Immigration Crackdown
Five New Galleries Are Opening at DC’s National Air and Space Museum in July
DOGE’s Geniuses Are Bad at Math, Ed Martin’s New Job Is to “Shame” People, and the Commanders Will Play in Spain
A New Book About Joe Biden Has Washington Chattering, the Library Wars Continue, and the Wizards Lost Out in the Draft
Meet the Duck Whisperer of DC
Rock Creek Isn’t Safe to Swim In. RFK Jr. Did It Anyway.
Humorless Scolds Fret About Trump’s Free Plane From Qatar, RFK Jr. Swam in Rock Creek, and We’ve Got 20 New Restaurants for You to Get Excited About