Can Two Nuclear Powers Fight a Conventional War?

By Marcus Weisgerber

November 9, 2017

As the U.S. military reviews the makeup of its nuclear arsenal, among the questions being asked is: Can two nuclear powers fight a conventional war without going nuclear?

Just last week, this scenario was among the mock battles when U.S. Strategic Command ran its annual Global Thunder nuclear wargame, Army Brig. Gen. Greg Bowen, the command’s deputy director of global operations, said Thursday at the Defense One Summit.

It gets into a very difficult calculus,” Bowen said. “It’s clearly a place that we don’t want to go.”

That’s because when one country begins to lose a conventional battle, there is a temptation to use those nuclear weapons.

If you’re talking about India and Pakistan, I think every scenario people play is that it goes nuclear,” said Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, who joined Bowen for an onstage discussion. “You have a nuclear war in South Asia, that’s a global event. That will affect us and not just economically.”

During a six-day trip to four Air Force nuclear bases last month, Gen. David Goldfein, the service’s chief of staff, asked airmen to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrence, or even combat.

» Get the best international military business news each week in the Global Business Brief from Marcus Weisgerber. Sign up here.

I’ve challenged…Air Force Global Strike Command to help lead the dialogue, help with this discussion about ‘What does conventional conflict look like with a nuclear element?’ and ‘Do we respond as a global force if that were to occur?’ and ‘What are the options?’” Goldfein said. “How do we think about it — how do we think about deterrence in that environment?”

Cirincione warned that nuclear weapons could be used as a form of de-escalation.

The Russians have this new theory  — and we’re starting to copy it — that in a conventional war that they start to lose, they will escalate to de-escalate,” Cirincione said. “They will use a nuclear weapon first in order to show us how serious it is, figuring that we will then de-escalate. I think the odds of that happening are quite small.

The justification for some of the new nuclear weapons people want — like the nuclear cruise missile — are based on that same theory that we have to be able to use nuclear weapons first to de-escalate,” he said. “It’s hard to see.”

By Marcus Weisgerber // Marcus Weisgerber is the global business editor for Defense One, where he writes about the intersection of business and national security. He has been covering defense and national security issues for more than a decade, previously as Pentagon correspondent for Defense News and chief editor of Inside the Air Force. He has reported from Afghanistan, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia, and often travels with the defense secretary and other senior military officials.

November 9, 2017