What would a US-NATO and Russia War at Ukraine Look Like? Clue: Nuclear War

At the LewRockwell.com, historian Eric Margolis ponders on scenarios from a possible escalation in the Ukraine crisis that leads to the real thing—a shooting war between NATO-US and the Russia.

First, the seeds to war has already been sown. 

Channeling the great French economist  Frederic Bastiat’s if goods don t cross borders, armies will Mr. Margolis writes (bold mine)

Russia and the West are at war – over fruits, veggies, pork, and bank loans. The cause is Ukraine, a vast emptiness formerly unknown to the western world,  but now deemed a vital national security interest worthy of a risking a very scary war.

Economic embargos such as those launched by the US against Russia may seem relatively harmless. They are not. Trade sanctions are a form of strategic warfare that is sometimes followed by bullets and shells.

Think, for good example, of the 1940 US embargo against Japan that led Tokyo’s fateful decision to go to war rather than face slow,economic strangulation. How many Americans know that President Roosevelt closed the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping to enforce demands that Tokyo get out of Manchuria and China?

Frighteningly, today, there are senior officials in Washington and Moscow who are actually considering a head on clash in Ukraine between Russian forces and NATO – which is an extension of US military power.

More aggravating factors…

Intensifying attacks by Ukrainian government forces (quietly armed and financed by the US) against  pro-Russian separatists and civilian targets in eastern Ukraine are increasing the danger that Moscow may intervene militarily to protect Ukraine’s ethnic Russian minority.

A full-scale military clash could begin with a Russian-declared “no-fly” zone over the eastern Ukraine such as the US imposed over Iraq. Moscow’s aim would be to stop the bombing and shelling of Ukrainian rebel cities by Kiev’s air force.

The balance of power between protagonists…

NATO could quickly deploy its potent air power against Russian aircraft.  US and NATO aircraft flying from new bases in Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland could seriously challenge the Russian Air Force over the Russia-Ukraine border region. More US warplanes would be rushed into Eastern Europe. Russian air defenses are strong and its air bases are close to the sphere of action. Still, NATO air power has a technological superiority over the Russian Air Force and better trained pilots.

On the ground, Russia has a slight advantage. It has 16,000-18,000 troops on the Ukraine border made up of mechanized infantry, armor, mobile air defense and artillery. A competent but small force, and hardly a menace to Europe, as the pro-war media howl.   Compare this small number of troops to the Soviet 1st Ukrainian Front alone in 1944,  made up of six armies and thousands of tanks and heavy guns.

Why a large conventional warfare is like fighting the last war

Russia could fight border skirmishes but certainly not retake Ukraine with this paltry force. Russia’s once 200-division army which boasted some 50,000 tanks is today a shadow of its past: 205,000 active soldiers and 80,000 indifferent reservists spread over the world’s larges nation. Russia, as always, has excellent heavy artillery and good tanks, but nothing compared to WWII when Soviet 152mm guns and rocket batteries were lined up wheel-to-wheel for kilometers.

Any attempt by NATO to capture Crimea would likely be defeated by Soviet air, naval, and land forces. The constricted, shallow Black Sea could prove a death trap for US warships.  Sevastopol (with Leningrad and Stalingrad) was named a Hero City of the Soviet Union for its heroic defense in WWII

Ukraine’s cobbled together army, about 64,000 men, suffers from poor training, logistical problems, and weak leadership. During Soviet days, it numbered more than 700,000 with the cutting edge of Russian weapons. Today, the army is stiffened by foreign mercenaries and far-rightists from Kiev. Even so, it could not stand up to Russia’s better-armed, better-equipped troops.

What about NATO?  In 1970, the US Army had about 710,000 soldiers in Europe, mostly based in Germany. Today, US has only 27,500 German-based troops left,  largely non-combat support units. At best, the US could probably assemble two weak combat brigades – about 5,500 men total – to rush to Ukraine. The rest of US forces are based in Afghanistan, Kuwait, the Gulf,  South Korea, and Japan, or at stateside. Moving them to Europe would take about six months.

From limited conventional war to the risks of Mutually Assured Destruction

So any military clash in Ukraine would initially be limited in scope and intensity. But a confrontation could quickly escalate into a dangerous crisis. The Cold War taught that nuclear – armed powers must never fight directly, only through proxies.

Nothing is worth the risk of nuclear war, even a limited one.

Let the Ukrainians sort out their differences by referendum.

On the 100^th anniversary of World War I, we again see our leaders playing with matches.

The above chart from Businessinsider.com represents the updated distribution of nuclear weapons around the globe.

For those who believe that a US-NATO and Russian nuclear exchange would be like a boxing match that one can just watch while eating popcorns and cheer on the sidelines, here is a quote from political analyst Paul Craig Roberts at his website:

However, Washington believes that it can win a nuclear war with little or no damage to the US. This belief makes nuclear war likely.

As Steven Starr makes clear, this belief is based in ignorance. Nuclear war has no winner. Even if US cities were saved from retaliation by ABMs, the radiation and nuclear winter effects of the weapons that hit Russia and China would destroy the US as well.

A list of potential consequences from a nuclear fallout from any prospective full scale nuclear exchange can be seen here.

Have a nice day

Russia Flaunts Nuclear Arms Capability...as Deterrent?

In World War I, the Maginot Line has been emblematic of a failed military strategy which was once proven effective. This has been characterized by the adage, “generals always fight the last war, especially if they have won it” 

And I have been saying, any confrontation involving major powers will likely involve using new or modern technology built armaments: nuclear weapons. 

Governments comprise a select group of politically mandated people authorized to use force. In combat, particularly with external forces, where the goal is to subjugate or defeat the opponent, governments with access to deadly weapons will likely choose to use them to reach such objective. Thus instead of conventional warfare, the risks of future wars will be one of nuclear exchanges.

The escalating stalemate in Ukraine has prompted Russia to flex her nuclear muscles against the West with a showcase of her nuclear capabilities

First a test launch of ICBM missiles...

From RiaNovosti 

Russia’s strategic missile forces test launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) during a training exercise on Thursday under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin.

The RS-12M Topol ICBM was launched from the country's northern Plesetsk space center.

Prelaunch operations and the launch and flight of the missile followed a strictly planned procedure. The Russian Ministry of Defense said the missile struck the practice target at the Kura ballistic range in the country’s Far East within the prescribed accuracy.

On Thursday, President Putin as Russia’s commander-in-chief held a planned training exercise of the armed forces. The presidents of Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) member countries – Belarus, Armenia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan – observed the training process at the national defense control center.

Next the following video shows how Russia is “NOT” preparing for a nuclear war (hat tip zero hedge) 

'

This seems like a reprise of the Cold War...yet increases the risks of World War III. 

Nuclear Weapons: Who has what? ... according to the CNN

No worries, stocks will continue to soar.

India: The Rise of a Nuclear Power

A brewing cold war has been developing which has not been in the radar screens of the mainstream.

Writes historian Eric Margolis at lewrockwell.com:

While the United States beats the war drums over North Korea and Iran’s long-ranged nuclear armed missiles –which they don’t even possess – Washington remains curiously silent about the arrival of the world’s newest member of the big nuke club – India.

In January, Delhi revealed a new, 800km-ranged submarine launched missile (SLBM) designated K-15. Twelve of these strategic, nuclear-armed missiles will be carried by India’s first of a class of domestically built nuclear-powered submarine, "Arihant." India is also working on another SLBM, K-5, with a range of some 2,800km.

These new nuclear subs and their SLBM’s will give India the capability to strike many high-value targets around the globe. Equally important, they complete India’s nuclear triad of nuclear weapons delivered by aircraft, missiles, and now sea that will be invulnerable to a decapitating first strike from either Pakistan or China.

Last February, it was revealed that India is fast developing a new, long-ranged, three-stage ballistic missile, Agni-VI. This powerful missile is said to be able to carry up to ten independently targetable nuclear warheads, known as MIRV’s.

Agni-VI’s range is believed to be at least 10,000km, putting all of China, Japan, Australia, and Russia in its range. A new 15,000km missile capable of hitting North America is also in the works under cover of India’s civilian space program. India is also developing accurate cruise missiles and miniaturized nuclear warheads to fit into their small diameter.

These important strategic developments will put India ahead of other nuclear powers France, Britain, North Korea, and Pakistan, about equal in striking power to Israel and China, and not too far behind the United States and Russia.

Delhi says it needs a nuclear triad because of the growing threat of China, whose conventional and nuclear forces are being rapidly modernized.

This writer has been reporting on the nuclear arms race between India and China since the late 1990’s. China has replaced Pakistan as India’s primary nuclear threat. Even so, Indian and Pakistani nuclear forces remain on a frightening hair-trigger alert within only a 3-5 minute warning time of enemy attack, making the Kashmir cease-fire line (or Line of Control) the world’s most dangerous border.

Pls. read the rest here.

World spending on nuclear weapons as of 2011 from icanw.org

The Phisix Amidst the Korean Peninsula Stand-Off

Domestic headlines continue to banner on the verbal showdown and belligerent artifice between the US and North Korea.

DPRK’s Declaration of War and War Posturing

While I think that this seems more a vaudeville than of a real threat, geopolitical brinkmanship can always deteriorate into a real thing. Inflated egos of political leaders may impulsively react on events that could push posturing into a full scale war. All that is needed is an event that may serve as the Casus Belli[1].

North Korea or Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has already declared a “state of war”[2] with its wealthier kin, South Korea or Republic of Korea (ROK) last March 30, 2013. But through the week, all that has occurred have been the mobilization or a show of force from contending parties. 

Yesterday North Korea reported to have moved its two medium range missiles, the Musudan missiles, which has a range of 1,865 miles and has the capability to strike at South Korea, Japan and US bases in the Pacific, supposedly for a missile test[3]. 

Yet despite all the North Korean rhetoric and propaganda about launching a nuclear war with the US, her nuclear missiles hardly have the range and capability to reach the US[4].

On the other hand, the US has transferred anti-ballistic missile defence system to Guam[5] along with several B-1 ("Bone") Lancer strategic long-range bombers.

The US has also “secretly” deployed the E-6 Mercury “Doomsday plane” which has been reportedly “tasked with "providing command and control of U.S. nuclear forces should ground-based control become inoperable" and whose core functions include conveying instructions from the National Command Authority to fleet ballistic missile submarines and also to further command post capabilities and control of land-based missiles and nuclear-armed bombers”, according to the Zero Hedge[6].

In other words, should there be a full scale war, such may include the use of nuclear weapons. The outcome, hence, is likely to be devastating and cannot be compared to any previous conventional wars.

Thus any comparisons with modern wars as the 1982 Falklands War between the UK and Argentina[7], the 1991 US-Iraq Gulf War[8], the 1999 Kargil war between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region[9], the 2003 US Invasion of Iraq[10], the Afghanistan War[11] or the 5 day South Ossetia war between Russia and Georgia[12] represents apples-to-oranges.

South Korea and the US will have to deal with North Korea’s 12-27 nuclear weapons with a TNT yield of 6-40 kilotons[13]. The atomic bombs that leveled Hiroshima “Little Boy” gravity bomb and Nagasaki “Fat Man” gravity bomb had TNT yields of 13-18 kilotons and 20-22 kilotons respectively[14].

Why is War Unlikely; North Korea’s Geopolitics of BlackMail

In 2010 I expressed doubts that a war in the Korean Peninsula will take place. I still maintain such skepticism.

Why?

North Korea is an impoverished state whose weapons are mostly dilapidated and obsolete, and whose vaunted millions of soldiers are likely to be starving, ill equipped and poorly trained[15].

And in spite of the North Korea’s vaunted war machinery, wherein much of the misallocation of the nation’s resources had been directed, the North Korean army is in a state of dilapidation and obsolescence: they seem ostensibly good for parades and for taunting, but not for real combat…

Thus, based on socio- political-economic and military calculations, the North Koreans are unlikely to pursue a path of war, because the odds are greatly against them. And their political leadership is aware of this.

And as I previously pointed out, North Korea is the embodiment of the environmental politics of known as “Earth hour”[16]. Except for the North Korea’s capital, Pyongyang, satellite photos reveal that at night, the entire country has mostly been dark or without light, which is in stark contrast to South Korea (left window).

Moreover, North Korea has recently been plagued by hyperinflation[17]. 

Since July 2010, price inflation as measured by rice prices has pole-vaulted by 5x. So we can’t discount that such war histrionics may have been meant to divert public’s attention from internal economic woes, and instead, like typical politicians North Korean leaders have used foreigners as scapegoats for policy failures.

Except for nuclear weapons, North Korea isn’t likely to win a conventional war against South Korea, even without US support.

South Korea can afford to defend herself with a modern well equipped well trained army given the wide difference of her economic growth[18], capital surpluses and wealth disparities. But the problem is that she may have substantially relied or delegated to the US much of the home or national defense duties.

Given such reality, political leaders of North Korea have long used nuclear weapons as bargaining chips to indulge on the geopolitics of blackmail. 

So unless North Korea’s Kim Jong-un has gone rogue and suicidal, the odds are that North Korea’s Kim will unlikely take on this war path. 

Besides, Kim’s wife Ri-Sol-ju has reportedly given birth to their first baby in secret[19]. A war would mean sacrificing both their political privileges and their lives. And they know this.

Yet a conventional war may perhaps open the gateway for ordinary North Koreans to make a mad dash out of their highly repressive country. 

And it isn’t also far fetch to think that a war may inspire many of North Korea’s military to immediately surrender or pledge allegiance to the South or mount a mutiny, given the horrors of the North Korean dictatorship. Just recently a North Korean official was executed by mortal shell for infringing on the rules covering the 100 day mourning period for the late King Jong il[20].

Of course such faceoff hasn’t been all about North Korea’s fault.

Aside from the sanctions imposed by the UN due to DPRK’s third missile tests, North Korean leaders may have been traumatized by recent US military air exercise involving heavy bombers[21].

Notes the historian Eric Margolis[22],

During the 1950-53 Korean War, US B-29 heavy bombers literally flattened North Korea. That’s why North Korea reacted so furiously when US B-52 heavy bombers and B-2 Stealth bombers skirted its borders late last month, triggering off this latest crisis. The B-2 can deliver the fearsome ‘MOAB’ 30,000 lb bomb called "the Mother of All Bombs" designed to destroy deep underground command HQ’s (read Kim Jong-un’s bunker) and underground nuclear facilities.

The real threat from a realization of a full scale war really hasn’t really been just about North Korea’s nuclear missiles but about the possible involvement of other nations as China, whom has long been North Korea’s key ally, and of Russia whom has had on and off relationship with the DPRK[23]. Although recently China’s leaders have expressed concern over the bellicose rhetoric of North Korea’s leaders[24], events may turn out differently once the shooting war begins. 

Remember the Casus Belli of World War I had been the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria[25], which invoked the assembly of opposing alliances that lead to the outbreak of war[26]. The opposing alliances then consisted of the Allies (based on the Triple Entente of the United Kingdom, France and Russia) on one side. And the Central Powers (originally the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy; but, as Austria–Hungary had taken the offensive against the agreement, Italy did not enter into the war), on the other side.

The US Military Industrial Complex and Stock Market Scenarios

Lastly the US seems to have been itching for a war either with Iran or with North Korea. Yet North Korea has long served as a useful public bogeyman which benefited of the US military industrial complex and the neoconservative politicians who support them.

The existence of a “bellicose” and “provocateur” DPRK has justified US military power build up in Asia. Jack A. Smith writing at Anti-War.com[27] 

Washington wants to get rid of the communist regime before allowing peace to prevail on the peninsula. No “one state, two systems” for Uncle Sam, by jingo! He wants one state that pledges allegiance to — guess who? In the interim, the existence of a “bellicose” North Korea justifies Washington’s surrounding the north with a veritable ring of firepower. A “dangerous” DPRK is also useful in keeping Tokyo well within the U.S. orbit and in providing another excuse for once-pacifist Japan to boost its already formidable arsenal.

Not only “war is the health of the state”[28], war signifies as good business for the politically anointed since defense industry benefits from subsidies or wealth transfer from taxpayers to politicians and military industrial complex.

So how the Korean Peninsula standoffs affect the domestic and the regional stock markets?

I see four potential scenarios with different outcomes. 1. No war. 2. Limited conventional war. 3. Limited war but with use of nuclear weapons. 4. World War III.

The stock markets will hardly be affected given the first two situations: no war or a limited conventional war. I lean towards the first scenario.

Nonetheless if the second condition occur, central banks are likely to inflate more. US monetary base surged during World War II, and also climbed during the Vietnam War.

If nuclear weapons will be used, the stock markets may be affected. But this will largely depend on the location and the extent of the damages.

Remember if DPRK’s Kim will go berserk and become suicidal then he may wish for retribution or make a statement against the West. Thus we should not dismiss the possibility that the DPRK may target nations with the least anti-ballistic defence or nations who are most vulnerable to their missiles. This puts Southeast Asia on such a list.

In this nuclear age, World War III means that we can kiss the stock markets goodbye and pray that we survive the nuclear holocaust.

Ignoring all these would signify as “denigration of history” or the false assumption that one is immune from misfortunes or disasters.

---

[1] Wikipedia.org Casus belli

[2] Bloomberg.com Mongolia Seeks to Play Peacemaker as North Korea Declares ‘War’ March 30, 2013

[3] Guardian.co.uk North Korea readies missile launch as fears of a covert cyberwar grow April 6, 2013

[4] Foreign Policy Blog Battle of the maps: North Korea's actual missile capability vs. North Korea's threatened missile capability March 29, 2013

[5] Reuters.com Extra line of defense – graphic of the day April 4, 2013

[6] Zero Hedge US Secretly Deploys B-1 Strategic Bombers, E-6 "Doomsday" Planes Near North Korea April 5, 2013

[7] Wikipedia.org Falklands War

[8] Wikipedia.org Gulf War

[9] Wikipedia.org Kargil War

[10] Wikipedia.org 2003 Invasion of Iraq

[11] Wikipedia.org Afghanistan War

[12] Wikipedia.org Russia-Georgia War

[13] Wikipedia.org North Korea and weapons of mass destruction

[14] Wikipedia.org Nuclear Weapon Yield

[15] See Will A War Break Out In The Korean Peninsula? November 28, 2010

[16] See Earth Hour: North Korean Version March 31, 2010

[17] Steve H. Hanke, North Korea’s Hyperinflation Legacy, Part II Cato.org December 7, 2012

[18] Washington Post Kim Jong Il’s economic legacy, in one chart December 19, 2011

[19] CSMonitor Did Kim Jong-un and his wife have a baby? March 5, 2013

[20] Daily Mail North Korean official is executed by MORTAR SHELL for drinking during 100-day mourning period for late 'Dear Leader' Kim Jong-il October 24, 2012

[21] Bloomberg North Korea Vows Military Action Against More U.S. B-52 Flights March 20, 2013

[22] Eric Margolis War in Korea April 6, 2013

[23] Wikipedia.org North Korea–Russia relations

[24] Washington Post China expresses concern over North Korea’s rhetoric April 7, 2013

[25] Wikipedia.org Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria

[26] Wikipedia.org World War I

[27] Jack A. Smith, Behind the US-North Korean Bluster Anti-war.com April 4, 2013

[28] Randolph Bourne War is the Health of the State Bureau of Public Secrets

Fighting the Last War: Can the Philippines Beat China?

A video circulating in the cyberspace tries to whip up nationalist sentiment by using the Korean war experience to suggest that “the Philippines can beat China” should any military conflict arise from the recent territorial dispute.

Heard of the axiom “Generals are always prepared to fight the last war”?

Such expression applies to the video. The video has been framed in the assumption that future wars will be waged in the conventional sense and thus the vaunted Filipino mettle will matter.

Well this would not only be a big mistake but is patently myopic.

We are not only in the information age but in the age of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), not limited to nuclear warfare (but also to various types of chemical, biological and other evolving warfare such as computer, robotics and etc..).

[As a side note, I will not deal here with the moral issue of whether Filipino lives lost and taxpayer expenditures in the Korean war had been justified or not].

And China has been part of the states armed with substantial nuclear armaments (from Wikipedia.org)

China has also in possession of chemical and biological weapons. I will skip on the military tale of the tape, nevertheless I have shown them here earlier

This simply means that the risks of the employment of these dreadful killing machines or instruments increases once a shooting war have been initiated.

For many, getting social acceptance means to make a big issue out of things they hardly understand.

Political correctness also means stirring up nationalist fervor when they know that someone else will get to do the bloody part of the political violence, whose major beneficiaries will accrue to politicians at society’s expense. Of course this assumes a limited shooting war.

And in case of a full scale war, this will like result to mass destruction of the society (whose families and friends of these agitators will also suffer). Of course these people can’t think through their emotions enough to understand the consequences of their advocacies or are shills for the politicos.

I am reminded by distinguished historian Arnold Toynbee who claimed that people whom have not experienced the horrors of war have the tendency to become provocateurs (or the generational war cycle).

The survivors of a generation that has been of military age during a bout of war will be shy, for the rest of their lives, of bringing a repetition of this tragic experience either upon themselves or upon their children, and... therefore the psychological resistance of any move towards the breaking of a peace ....is likely to be prohibitively strong until a new generation.... has had the time to grow up and to come into power. On the same showing, a bout of war, once precipitated, is likely to persist until the peace-bred generation that has been lightheartedly run into war has been replaced, in its turn, by a war-worn generation.

And it is why agitators of war should get themselves enlisted in the military and request to get assigned in the frontlines so they can practice on what they preach.

[Updated to add: Here is a list of the death toll of 20th century wars, given the capacity of destruction of modern weaponry--assume the worst for the new age warfare]

Of course I am not convinced that the regional territorial controversy has solely been about superficial claims to property or about resources but more about the concealed political agenda such as the advancement of the military industrial complex, and or even perhaps a smoke and mirror encirclement strategy against Russia as China’s regional economic and military policies seem like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

The more important way to promote peace and social cooperation is none other than through expanded trade.

As the great Claude Frederic Bastiat once warned

if goods don’t cross borders, armies will