Former Supreme Cmdr of NATO Wes Clark states US may have to risk nuclear war to maintain deterrence

[andym]

[In a recent interview, Wesley Clark, a Democrat who made a serous ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2004 states that 1) Putin should be declared a war criminal, 2) the US should establish a no-fly zone in Ukraine if asked, and 3) the US may have to risk nuclear war to maintain deterrence and the modern world as we know it, although his answer is nuanced.]

"Q: Would Putin use a nuclear weapon?

A: If he was losing, I think he might. And if we think there’s a chance a guy would use a nuclear weapon against us, I guess we just need to give up on the concept of extended deterrence. Why would we want to defend Estonia if Putin might want to use a nuclear weapon? Is Estonia worth it? You say it’s NATO, but the cold, hard reality is Putin can move into Estonia and take control before we can make up our mind what to do. Or Taiwan — what if China says, “You come into Taiwan again, we’re going to use a nuclear weapon.” The Chinese have a lot of people, they have a lot of nuclear weapons. What if North Korea says, “You hold another exercise, we’re going to use a nuclear weapon.” Say [to North Korea] “Oh, we’re going to obliterate you.” “No, you’re not going to obliterate us, we can attack the United States — now.” What if Iran says it? That’s the answer to it. It was easy to be the world’s hyperpower when we were going against Libya, Iraq and Syria. The United States has to recalibrate its understanding, leadership and processes to work in this new area or we will lose the rules-based international system, which we’re proud to have established after World War II and which we established by using the concept of extended deterrence.

Q: What moves could the United States make beyond sanctions right now that would help protect Ukraine?

A: The most important move now is for the president to announce Vladimir Putin is a war criminal. Really. This gives enormous diplomatic leverage and a greater incentive to help the campaign. "

from [more at this link]
https://newsbeezer.com/aus/former-nato-commander-wesley-clark-is-urging-the-us-to-reconsider-the-no-fly-zone/
(use this instead of the original NY Post link)

also this thread at DU:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016315914

Also see post #10- for a detailed explication of Commander Clark's views
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216436053#post10

[dchill]

1. And how are we NOT risking nuclear war...

...by NOT doing anything offensive? Considering the antagonist has already threatened.

In other words, I agree with Wes Clark.

[andym]

2. I think Clark is correct as well. NT.

[Cha]

3. Solid point..

to do?!

[Nevilledog]

5. I think it would make nukes more likely.

Putin can't even handle tiny Ukraine, you think he could handle NATO forces? Only option besides surrendering would be nukes.

This ends quickly only if Putin is taken out.

[dchill]

6. I'm for taking him out. Leaving no tracks.

[Nevilledog]

14. We are not alone

Link to tweet

[dchill]

15. The cork is out of the nuclear bottle.

[Nevilledog]

16. I called it yesterday

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216429849#post5

[dchill]

17. Exactly. But where's the deniability with cameras on?

[Nevilledog]

18. They haven shown a lot of competence.

I was mainly inferring he could "incidentally" get his nuclear result without having to drop a nuke.

[dchill]

19. Oh. There is that.

[elleng]

4. Where did that headline come from, 'Clark states US must risk nuclear war?'

[andym]

10. Changed the title which was taken from his answer to the question about Putin using nukes

in which he states the US either has to give up extended deterrence or "recalibrate" under nuclear threats. The question is what does recalibrate mean. I changed the title to state "may have to" based on my understanding of his answer to this question and his writings.

His argument is clear, because what he is stating is that the US is subject to nuclear blackmail. He uses the word recalibrate to be nuanced, but what would the US do under a hypothetical threat from various sources, such as one he suggested N Korea might pose. He did not provide the answer here, but has discussed this in the past: specifically in the article below where he spends quite a bit of space stating that US nuclear forces need serious upgrades, but then goes on to suggest economic actions that could help strategically:

https://www.georgetownjournalofinternationalaffairs.org/online-edition/2019/7/11/part-ii-rethinking-deterrence

"Facing these challenges, the United States must modernize its deterrent. This requires modernized delivery systems to assure that air launched missiles can penetrate Russian airspace, a development which likely requires hypersonic capabilities. U.S. ballistic nuclear submarines must be taken to the next level of stealth, with newer, quieter propulsion and more up-to-date materials. U.S. ballistic missiles remain the most vulnerable element of the Triad. This aging force requires a clear launch-on-warning policy. It must either receive protection by defensive systems, be replaced by road-mobile systems that could confound targeting, or be removed from the Triad.

In order to maintain “coupling” to allies and forward deployed forces, nuclear warheads must be modernized. The so-called small warhead must be developed and deployed to answer to Russian tactical and theater capabilities without resorting to our strategic deterrent. The current “dual-capable aircraft,” with several dozen aircraft-delivered nuclear weapons, will lack credibility in a crisis against modern Russian air defense. Submarine-launched ballistic missiles used early in a conflict will likely be perceived as a strategic response. Thus, some kind of long-range, land-based, nuclear capable missile is required and must be forward deployed prior to a crisis.

In addition to existing ballistic missile defense systems oriented against North Korean and potential Iranian threats, protection of the United States from the threatened Russian autonomous undersea drone with megaton warheads must be given additional priority.

Finally, continuing emphasis must be placed on space-based intelligence and communications, as well as the cyber protection of data, communications, and planning and operational systems. This will require new investments in satellite redundancy and defensive measures, as well as continuing participation in daily cyber-jousting with hostile state actors. Selective investments must also be made to counter EMP threats."

[He goes on to state that deterrence must be made on other levels as well: " non-military efforts which will be more significant in sustaining American power and influence in the world,..." "Of course, the United States still enjoys broad advantages in the appeal of its values, laws, and society.... " "we must continue to strive to live up to these values, and to protect ourselves from the continuing threat of Russian and Chinese hybrid warfare which uses our own values to attack our democracy from within.... " "Without a profound resurgence in American domestic investment in infrastructure, education, health, and the population’s social mobility, we cannot expect to maintain our soft power advantages...." " the United States must empower its business community to work abroad on behalf of U.S. interests. Today, large American businesses work for their own profits rather than for the larger national interest,..." Leaders of these major corporations should be encouraged to gain the perspective of U.S. national needs through attendance at U.S. service schools and institutes, and through periodic personnel exchanges with government agencies. They should be expected to assist the United States when called upon."]

[elleng]

11. Thanks

[kentuck]

7. Why not paint the fighter bombers in Ukraine colors...

...and bomb the hell out of them?

Or just send one guided missile to the middle of the convoy and immediately apologize for the accidental firing?

Get their attention.

This is not a serious suggestion at this time...

But it could be in 2 or 3 more days if the situation worsens.

[bluestarone]

8. A person does have to wonder what the hell to do

I'm thinking if the russian loser is allowed to continue, what's to stop China N. Korea from issuing their fucking threats to us? I DO support Joe and his team. I just hope they have some kind of covert plan to get rid of this MONSTER in russia! We are at a Cuban Missile Crisis moment i fear.

[brush]

9. If the only thing Putin has to do is threaten nuclear war to back us off...

what's to stop him from invading Poland, the Baltics, and Finland next?

Gen. Clark is right. We need to remind Putin we have nukes too. The whole equation of deterrence has changed with the Ukraine invasion and Putin's threat. He must think he's the reincarnation of Peter the Great who is destined to reconstitute the Russian Empire, when all he is an isolated bully who thinks he can do anything he wants because he has a big military and can threaten nukes.

[JohnSJ]

12. If we call Putin a war criminal, you know they will throw our invasion of Iraq based on a lie right

back at us, and say bush also fits that category

At this stage I don’t think it would be a wise move. It would create an unnecessary distraction to what is happening in Ukraine

We need to focus on Ukraine, and getting Ukraine the aid they need, both in weapons to defend itself, along with food and medical supplies

[orwell]

13. Bush is a war criminal...

...I have no problem with that statement.

[JohnSJ]

21. Yes, but isn't that a separate issue? and it will only distract from what is happening in Ukraine

The reality is that neither Putin or bush are going to be charged as war criminals

Highly doubtful our illustrious press will ask Clark, wouldn’t bush be classified as a war criminal also?

It ain’t gonna happen

Most of the media that lie anyway, even though they knew otherwise. Judy Miller among others were leading that charge. Katie Couric, “go seals”

Bringing bush up as a war criminal now isn’t going to help Ukraine, and it will do just the opposite, because the Russian talking point will be because the US did it, they can do it

[orwell]

28. I am not a talking head...

...I am not an"influencer".

...I don't have a YouTube channel.

...Nobody cares what I think other than those that know me.

...I am just stating a fact.

Bush is a war criminal in every sense of the word. Whether or not he is ever charged is immaterial.

After almost 1,000,000 deaths in Iraq, most of them civilian, based on a known fabrication, what would you call him?

I guess you could classify it as an "Inconvenient Truth".

[Autumn]

22. And if they say Bush also fits that category they are correct. So? Bullshit words are not

an unnecessary distraction. What do you want the US to do? Say nothing? Appeasement and hiding heads in the sand is cowardly.

[JohnSJ]

24. Really? Do you wonder why the media didn't ask Clark that question if bush was also a war

criminal?

What do you think Clark would have answered?

That question wasn’t really asked before when it happened and everything came out

This isn’t a question of appeasement or cowardly, it is focusing on the current situation, and how to best help the Ukrainians. Bringing the mistakes of the US will not help the Ukrainians one bit, and the Russians will use that talking point as justification for their actions in Ukraine

The reality is nothing will happen to Putin or bush

[Stinky The Clown]

20. I trust Wes Clark, who lives in the rarified air of the smartest persons in the room.

[Hekate]

23. General Clark is worth listening to

[BannonsLiver]

25. As some have said what is needed is to reconstitute NATO in Europe

That means keeping large numbers of tanks, fighters and apaches in eastern Europe permanently. We had 5,000 tanks in Europe at the end of the Cold War. We have zero now. That’s a problem. The Brits and Germans barely have 500 between them. That’s a problem. If that deterrent is re established he will be boxed in.

[wiggs]

26. Yes. At 65 this is the most worried about nuks I've been. This is insane. nt

[zipplewrath]

27. There is a question here

Can a nuclear power act without consequence? If so, what will limit what they do?

[Justice matters.]

32. Looking at the incompetence of the Russian army...

I don't trust them in handling anything with a nuke sign on it. 😱

[radius777]

29. Agree, we need to greatly expand NATO

to include all of the countries within the free world, including Japan, South Korea and Australia.

We need the best and most modern weaponry and fighting forces.

We need to make it clear that any attempt to threaten the free world will be met with certain doom.

[Sgent]

33. We may should create a PTO

but I just can't think that Japan or S Korea are going to jump to defend Estonia. On the other hand, a PTO with Tiawan, US, UK, SK, JP, AUS, NZ, any other NATO countries who want to join, and debatedly VN and a few other TPP members to counterbalance CN would be nice -- assuming JP and SK can make amends.

[lindysalsagal]

30. IMHO, our only military move should be to remove one man before anyone knows it's happening.

And simultaneously call off all Ukrainian fighting. The ukrainians know who to contact to talk through the rest of it.

Otherwise, it's a risk no president can take.

[PSPS]

31. It's quite obvious that everyone is already aware of this.