Fact check: Biden administration’s Nuclear Posture Review supports first strikes

The Biden admin has moved the arms of the nuclear clock closer to midnight…

A recent Realpolitik article by Mike Whitney reports that the Biden administration recently released 2022 Nuclear Posture Review supports first strikes, and discusses Putin’s response.

The Biden admin 2022 Nuclear Posture Review is here:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.fas.org/2022/10/27113658/2022-Nuclear-Posture-Review.pdf

Page 13

Declaratory policy is informed by the threat, assessed adversary perceptions, Ally and partner perspectives, and our strategic risk reduction objectives. We conducted a thorough review of a broad range of options for nuclear declaratory policy – including both No First Use and Sole Purpose policies – and concluded that those approaches would result in an unacceptable level of risk in light of the range of non-nuclear capabilities being developed and fielded by competitors that could inflict strategic-level damage to the United States and its Allies and partners. Some Allies and partners are particularly vulnerable to attacks with non-nuclear means that could produce devastating effects. We retain the goal of moving toward a sole purpose declaration and we will work with our Allies and partners to identify concrete steps that would allow us to do so.

Page 15

The PRC is increasing its capability to threaten the United States and our Allies and partners with nuclear weapons. The range of nuclear options available to the PRC leadership will expand in the years ahead, allowing it potentially to adopt a broader range of strategies to achieve its objectives, to include nuclear coercion and limited nuclear first use. We will maintain a flexible deterrence strategy and force posture that continues to clearly convey to the PRC that the United States will not be deterred from defending our Allies and partners, or coerced into terminating a conflict on unacceptable terms.

Putin’s press conference is here:

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/70061

The part of the press conference quoted by Mike Whitney is in bold, here in context:

Konstantin Panyushkin, Channel One: Good afternoon.

A question about the special military operation.

What do you think about the status of the SMO?

Talking with human rights activists on Wednesday, you said, this is a quote: “This will be a lengthy process.” If possible, can you explain what you had in mind?

And another question from the same meeting. You said, and I quote: “If Russia does not use nuclear weapons first, it won’t use them second, either.” This caused an uproar. Please explain what you meant.

Vladimir Putin: As for the length of the SMO, I was referring to the time needed for the settlement process. The SMO is running its course and everything is stable – there are no questions or problems there now. As you can see, the Defence Ministry operates transparently. It reflects everything that is taking place in reality, on the ground, in its daily reports. This is how it stands, objectively, in this regard. I have nothing to add.

As for the settlement process in general – yes, it will probably be complicated and will take some time. But one way or another, the parties to this process will have to accept the realities that are taking shape on the ground. This is the first part of your question.

Now the second part. I understand that everyone is worried and has always been worried since the advent of nuclear arms, and weapons of mass destruction in general. People, all of humanity, have been concerned about what will happen to the planet and to us? But look what I had in mind, I will explain some things.

The United States has this theory of a preventive strike. This is the first point. Now the second point. They are developing a system for a disarming strike. What does that mean? It means striking at control centres with modern high-tech weapons to destroy the opponent’s ability to counterattack, and so on.

What are these modern weapons? These are cruise missiles that we did not have at one time – we did not have land-based cruise missiles. We removed them; we scrapped them. Meanwhile, the Americans were smarter at that time when they were holding talks with the Soviet Union. They scrapped land-based missiles but retained air- and sea-based missiles that were not covered by the treaty, and we became defenceless. But now we have them and they are more modern and even more efficient.

There were plans to deliver a preventive disarming strike with hypersonic weapons. The United States does not have these weapons, but we do. Regarding a disarming strike, perhaps we should think about using the achievements of our US partners and their ideas about how to ensure their own security. We are just thinking about this. No one was shy about discussing it out loud in the past. This is the first point.

The United States has a theory and even practice. They have the concept of a preventive strike in their strategy and other policy documents. We do not. Our Strategy talks about a retaliatory strike. There are no secrets whatsoever. What is a retaliatory strike? That is a response strike. It is when our early warning system, the missile attack warning system, detects missiles launched towards Russian Federation territory. First, it detects the launches, and then response actions begin.

We hold regular exercises of our nuclear forces. You can see them all, we are not hiding anything. We provide information under our agreements with all nuclear countries, including the United States. We inform our partners that we are conducting these exercises. Rest assured they do the exact same thing.

After the early warning system receives a signal indicating a missile attack, hundreds of our missiles are launched and they cannot be stopped. But it is still a retaliatory strike. What does that mean? It means that enemy missile warheads will fall on the territory of the Russian Federation. This cannot be avoided. They will fall anyway. True, nothing will remain of the enemy, because it is impossible to intercept hundreds of missiles. And this is, without a doubt, a potent deterrent.

But if a potential adversary believes it is possible to use the preventive strike theory, while we do not, this still makes us think about the threat that such ideas in the sphere of other countries’ defence pose to us.

That is all I have to say about that.