Is Putin’s nuclear threat a bluff?
While no one can be certain in this game of military poker, Putin’s “tells” all point to bluff rather than action.
By Marc Egnal
Anyone who has played poker knows that a good bluff now and then can win the pot. With little in your hand, you stare down the other players, they fold and you scoop up the chips.
But it’s a tactic to be used with care, and not too often. A canny opponent will call the bluff. And when they do, the stack you pushed forward disappears and you’re forced from the table. Usually, you’re wiser to wait for better cards and play from strength. Here’s the question for the current crisis in Ukraine: does the possession of nuclear weapons deal a country a strong hand or simply encourage bluffing? Repeatedly, leaders have overvalued the diplomatic advantage these bombs bring. In 1945, as the war in Europe wound down, but before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, U.S. Secretary of War Henry Stimson predicted the weapon would become the “master card” for American policymakers. The new president, Harry Truman, agreed, asserting the weapon would “put us in a position to dictate our own terms at the end of the war.” It did not. Armies on the ground, not the superbomb, shaped the division of Europe. Despite conveying an aura of invincibility, America’s nuclear arsenal made little difference during the country’s lengthy involvement in Southeast Asia. As the French, increasingly dependent on U.S. support, were getting battered by the Viet Minh, Eisenhower sent to the Tonkin Gulf two carriers with nuclear-armed planes. But that threat did not prevent the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. As one observer noted, Ike “could not identity an appropriate enemy or target to fit the massive nuclear response.” Nixon, too, was certain that “nukes” — even if they weren’t used — would make all the difference in Vietnam. He confided to his chief of staff, Bob Haldeman, “I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them that, ‘for God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can’t restrain him when he’s angry — and he has his hand on the nuclear button’ and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for pece.”
Nixon’s nuclear bluff didn’t work. The North Vietnamese and their allies in the South prevailed despite the brutality of conventional bombing, leading to the American withdrawal in 1973 and the Communist takeover in 1975.
Nine nations (U.S., Russia, France, China, U.K., Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea) now have nuclear weapons. But those bombs have not reshaped regional conflicts. In part, the reluctance to use them is a recognition of MAD — Mutually Assured Destruction. Destroy my country, and I will destroy yours — and humanity. In part, that hesitation reveals a red line that no one dares cross. Many also recognize that the global village is a small place. Bomb Ukraine, and radioactive particles will shower on Russia. What kind of poker player is Putin? Are his threats to use nuclear weapons a bluff or do they have substance? Along with its arsenal of city-destroying InterContinental missiles, Russia has about 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons. Some are small enough to be used in field artillery. They could wipe out a single military base or irradiate a neighbourhood. While no one can be certain in this game of military poker, Putin’s “tells” all point to bluff rather than action. No savvy player would insist, as Putin did, “This is not a bluff.” No smart competitor would issue the same threat time and again, without (fortunately, in this case) any follow through. During the 2014 invasion of Crimea, Putin declared he was ready to use nuclear weapons. He has broadcast the same warning repeatedly since the outbreak of the Ukraine war, recently announcing that he would defend the newly annexed territories “with all the forces and means at our disposal.” But even with bridges blown and soldiers fleeing, he has not backed up this grim promise. And surely Putin, or someone in his circle, recognizes the strong hands held by others at the table. The U.S. has warned Russia of the “catastrophic consequences” of using nuclear weapons. The Ukrainians, like the Vietnamese before them, soldier on successfully — ignoring the posturing about Armageddon. Sometimes a bluff is not the best tactic when waging war.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2022/10/15/is-putins-nuclear-threat-a-bluff.html