LETTER: Seven decades after Hiroshima, Biden is in a similar bind
Tactical nuclear missiles could bring a decisive win in Ukraine, but not using them puts Nato itself at risk
04 July 2023 - 18:37
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
In 1945, US President “The buck stops here” Truman agonised over dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Later, during the Korean War, he refused to sign off on the MacArthur/LeMay plan to drop them on Manchuria. Now, more than 70 years later, President Joe Biden grapples with the same awful decision.
The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Domestically, his administration desperately needs a big win, as more than $100bn has been spent with victory supposedly guaranteed. And now the “Hunter” affair has gone septic.
Biden’s Nato allies are restive in the run-up to the Nato summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, from July 11. They have lost their cheap Russian gas, emptied their weapons stores and seen their vaunted Leopard tanks destroyed by Russian drones. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s position is worse. He is rounding up any remaining males at gunpoint for military service. More than 13,000 have already died in the ongoing offensive. What’s more, Nato does not want Ukraine as a member, even though his soldiers are being sacrificed in a Nato war.
The underlying problem was identified in World War 1. Defence in depth with trenches, mines and tank traps are almost impossible to overcome. The solution then was to explode huge mines under the fortifications. The biggest, under the Messines Ridge, was the largest man-made pre-nuclear explosion. This 1917 blast, which was heard in London, buried thousands of German troops and allowed the allies to advance with minimum casualties.
Today, mines have been replaced with tactical nuclear missiles, but using them in Ukraine for the same purpose would entail a devastating escalation. Not using them risks another frozen conflict with a Ukraine eventually divided along the Dnipro River. It would also mean more trouble at home, an effective victory for Russia, the demise of Nato and possibly the EU, as well. While the buck still stops in the Oval Office, it’s not the sort of decision anyone, let alone an octogenarian, should have to make.
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
LETTER: Seven decades after Hiroshima, Biden is in a similar bind
Tactical nuclear missiles could bring a decisive win in Ukraine, but not using them puts Nato itself at risk
In 1945, US President “The buck stops here” Truman agonised over dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Later, during the Korean War, he refused to sign off on the MacArthur/LeMay plan to drop them on Manchuria. Now, more than 70 years later, President Joe Biden grapples with the same awful decision.
The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Domestically, his administration desperately needs a big win, as more than $100bn has been spent with victory supposedly guaranteed. And now the “Hunter” affair has gone septic.
Biden’s Nato allies are restive in the run-up to the Nato summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, from July 11. They have lost their cheap Russian gas, emptied their weapons stores and seen their vaunted Leopard tanks destroyed by Russian drones. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s position is worse. He is rounding up any remaining males at gunpoint for military service. More than 13,000 have already died in the ongoing offensive. What’s more, Nato does not want Ukraine as a member, even though his soldiers are being sacrificed in a Nato war.
The underlying problem was identified in World War 1. Defence in depth with trenches, mines and tank traps are almost impossible to overcome. The solution then was to explode huge mines under the fortifications. The biggest, under the Messines Ridge, was the largest man-made pre-nuclear explosion. This 1917 blast, which was heard in London, buried thousands of German troops and allowed the allies to advance with minimum casualties.
Today, mines have been replaced with tactical nuclear missiles, but using them in Ukraine for the same purpose would entail a devastating escalation. Not using them risks another frozen conflict with a Ukraine eventually divided along the Dnipro River. It would also mean more trouble at home, an effective victory for Russia, the demise of Nato and possibly the EU, as well. While the buck still stops in the Oval Office, it’s not the sort of decision anyone, let alone an octogenarian, should have to make.
James Cunningham
Camps Bay
New Zealand premier Hipkins soft-soaps China before polls
Biden’s green hydrogen plan has a water problem
FTC grilled in hearing on Microsoft plan to acquire Activision
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most Read
Related Articles
Fundamental split between two black justices on affirmative action ruling by ...
US top court ruling allows person to refuse to provide services for same-sex ...
Pence visits Zelensky during surprise Ukraine visit
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.