Kim’s is Big, Trump’s is Bigger, is Putin’s Biggest?

Yesterday Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed his country in the state of the nation speech. One topic he presented is what he is calling “invincible” nuclear weapons. The weapons are claimed to be able to overcome any US missile defense systems. Furthermore, they can reach “anywhere in the world.” In addition to the continued boasting as CNN puts it, Putin displayed an animated video of missiles targeting Florida.

It is unclear if this is hatred towards the famous Florida character, Mickey Mouse, or a heartfelt blow to United States President Donald Trump, who owns several properties and resorts in the Sunshine State. Putin said the West should not take this lightly and that it is not a bluff. More interesting than the motivation behind the animation is that Putin introduced his possession of nuclear tipped cruise missiles. Experts are already making comparisons from Putin’s new weapons and the America operation, Project Pluto. Project Pluto was shut down decades ago due to safety concerns. For more information and a dialogue on the comparison of that project to Putin’s statements, view:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/russias-new-nukes-are-similar-to-a-risky-project-the-u-s-abandoned/.

President Putin made a splash with his state of the nation speech. The most head-turning comment was his claim of the weapons he introduced can render the US and NATO defenses useless. Whether or not these weapons are as powerful as he claims will be discovered in time. What we know now is that President Putin is in an election cycle, where he is expected to win in coming weeks. Perhaps the Russian ruler’s statements were political propaganda more than scientific fact. Either way it is clear that Putin has thrown his hat in the center of the ring of nuclear power conversation. Recently there has been a bombardment of tweets from the US President directed towards North Korea’s “little rocket man.” One tweet regarded the size of their nuclear buttons. While Trump claims his is bigger and better than that of the North Korean leader, it appears that Putin has made a claim that his is bigger than Trumps. I imagine the American President’s twitter fingers are itching at a potential post. While his tweet may be in the drafts column for now we can only sit and wait to find out whos button truly measures the largest.

Disarmament: Are We The Problem Or Are They?

This week, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov condemned the United States for perceived infringement on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). He cited the nation's participation in "joint nuclear missions" and the deployment of and training in strategic arms in Europe, both of which he says are violations of the NPT. With such "destabilizing factors," Lavrov concludes that real disarmament is impossible.

Does he have a point? Perhaps. However, his point is lost in a fog of paranoia as he claims that the U.S. military is attempting to prepare European countries to use nuclear weapons against Russia. The U.S. and NATO have both denied this and other allegations that their build up of defense in Eastern Europe against Iran is really meant towards Russia. Lavrov also makes claims that Russia is not deploying or testing weapons and has reduced its nuclear arsenal 85% since the Cold War, but we all know better. Russia can wage a strategic war of words all it wants but it does not detract from their role in providing plans, support, and/or materials to the U.S.'s enemies for the development of nuclear weapons. 

In fact, as a recent article suggests, Washington is concerned that Russia's military strategy is "evolving" and increasingly focused on active use of nuclear weapons. It cites knowledge of illicit Russian military exercises in which nuclear weapons use was simulated, the caliber of which has not been seen since the height of the Cold War.

This too, however, should be taken with a bit of skepticism, as it is possible that the White House may be, let's say 'overestimating' Russia's activity in hopes of forwarding its own plans for expanding nuclear power. This approach of increasing power may be, as the Pentagon puts it, "grounded in a realistic assessment of today's strategic environment." Just earlier this month, both Russia and the U.S. claimed that the other was in compliance with reductions outlined in New START, despite the fact that an assessment on February 5th showed that Russia is deploying more nuclear might than the U.S. Trump has made clear that, while he does not want any nation to possess nuclear power, as long as they do, he wants to ensure that the U.S. has the most; Putin has expressed similar sentiments. This coupled with Jonathan Granoff's critical comments on our NPT compliance during his visit to the Patterson School leave us with a lot to ponder. 

What might we learn from all this? The Russians are paranoid. We're a little trigger happy. And we both have a lot of nuclear weapons we're not planning to reduce any time soon. So nothing new.

What the Hell are We Doing!?

The other day, the Obama Administration decided that the pressure from the international community, namely the UN and the Arab League, was too much for him not to pursue military action in the Libya situation. With this "no fly zone," the administration has fallen into the trap of believing that detached operations from aerial platforms can effect lasting strategic change. The administration struggles to answer what the endstate in Libya looks like. I thought we should expand on this for them.

First, we should understand (as best as we can) what we are committed to.
- We want Qadaffi gone, but AFRICOM, at least on the low side, is not allowed to kill him.
- Some have admitted that a Libya with Qadaffi is still a possibility.
- We are supporting an unknown "rebel" entity that has no clear leader or political organization that is prepared to take control of the country once "regime change" happens.
- We got into this now instead of before, because........
- The Arab League originally supported a "no fly zone" but not they are wobbling
- Russia is laughing at us. But Putin is an idiot.
- We are going to "hand this over" ASAP

Someone studying strategy would consider what the end of this thing looks like. So lets...

Those thinking about this in the administration are likely praying for an Egypt-type scenario where the Libyan military, with overwhelming support by the Libyan people, turns against Qaddafi and he is run out of town. Somehow there is a smooth transition to an interim government, followed by steps toward elections. Since this same military was just shelling its people, I don't see it happening, but you never know... Though the Eqypt solution still isn't even clear in Egypt, we will call that the absolute best case scenario.

More likely to happen in this case is that if Qaddafi is killed or run out of town and retaliatory acts ignite in a lawless land. This will result in complete state failure, a la Somalia. What then? The international community will be hard-pressed to stand idly by while the country implodes, since military action contributed to this state. Someone, therefore will have to commit Stability and Support personnel into the country that will help stand up a new Libya. The uncertain security situation will likely demand some sort of military personnel and "they" will look to the US for money and/or troops. Regime change was our mission in Iraq, and that is what this outcome resembles.

Considering the process before Qaddafi falls...our "humanitarian effort" right now is designed to establish a no fly zone to prevent Qaddafi from massacring somebody. If the rebel forces restart their offensive and start getting whacked by the Libyan Army again, what will we do? An idea...lets identify a leader in the resistence that has a reasonable amount of political clout and may be able to run the country. We can embed special forces with this guy and have them call in Close Air Support until the regime falls. Oh wait....we did this....that guy's name was Karzai.

Now...if Qaddafi doesn't fall. He can rightly declare victory against basically the entire world. Does this matter? Maybe, maybe not. I believe that it will place in doubt other country's belief in America's resolve. President Obama will almost certainly not be reelected.

Reality check:
- This "got real" to many when our first casualty, an F-15 (thankfully no humans were seriously wounded) crashed into "friendly" territory because of mechanical problems. Let's imagine for a second if this plane crashed where Qaddafi's goons got a hold of him.

Our recent lesson on the mythical RMA addresses this situation very well. Despite the Army Operational Concept - the product of a lengthy project that considered the fundamental fallacy of the RMA - some among our higher brass are still convinced that the technology advances in recent decades have lifted the fog of war and allowed us to execute decisive action using PGMs (precision guided munitions) and no BOGs (boots on the ground). BG McMaster discussed in a teleconference with the COIN class this week how Iraq and Afghanistan have proven this.

To be clear - I want the US / Obama to "win" this thing. I just don't know what that means. Unfortunatly, the only good solution I see is someone (hopefully not the US) conducting Iraq-like Stability and Support Operations in Libya. Hopefully they will quell the insurgency (because there will be one) early with the lessons that we've learned over the last 11 years.