Incoming National Security Advisor, Charles Kupperman, made the claim Nuclear War With USSR Was Winnable.
He made those statements in the 1980s. I do not know his views today, but let’s review what he said then.
President Donald Trump’s acting national security adviser, former Reagan administration official Charles Kupperman, made an extraordinary and controversial claim in the early 1980s: nuclear conflict with the USSR was winnable and that “nuclear war is a destructive thing but still in large part a physics problem.”
Kupperman, appointed to his new post on Tuesday after Trump fired his John Bolton from the job, argued it was possible to win a nuclear war “in the classical sense,” and that the notion of total destruction stemming from such a superpower conflict was inaccurate. He said that in a scenario in which 20 million people died in the U.S. as opposed to 150 million, the nation could then emerge as the stronger side and prevail in its objectives.
His argument was that with enough planning and civil defense measures, such as “a certain layer of dirt and some reinforced construction materials,” the effects of a nuclear war could be limited and that U.S. would be able to fairly quickly rebuild itself after an all-out conflict with the then-Soviet Union.
At the time, Kupperman was executive director of President Ronald Reagan’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament. He made the comments during an interview with Robert Scheer for the journalist’s 1982 book, “With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush, and Nuclear War.”
The National Security Council did not immediately respond to questions on whether Kupperman, 68, still holds the same views of nuclear conflict as he did in the early 1980s. Kupperman’s seemingly cavalier attitude toward the potential death of millions of people was criticized at the time both by Democratic politicians and arms control experts.
The article posts excerpts so let’s look at a couple of precise statements.
Kupperman Statements
- If the objective in a war is to try to destroy as many Soviet civilians and as many American civilians as is feasible, and the casualty levels approached 150 million on each side, then it’s going to be tough to say you have a surviving nation after that. But depending on how the nuclear war is fought, it could mean the difference between 150 casualties and 20 million casualties. I think that is a significant difference, and if the country loses 20 million people, you may have a chance of surviving after that.
- I think it is possible to win, in the classical sense. It means that it is clear after the war that one side is stronger than the other side, the weaker side is going to accede to the demands of the stronger side.
Winning in the Classical Sense
We lost 20 million, they lost 150 million.
Let’s call that “winning in the “classical sense”.
It’s precisely how one “wins” trade wars, but on a much larger scale.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
The scary thing today is that warhead counts on both sides are low enough that a sufficiently desperate head of state might think victory is possible.
The most unstable crisis interactions we’ve had between nuclear powers all involved very low deliverable warhead numbers.
Arms control agreements need to specify MINIMUM force deployments that are robust enough to ensure that even the craziest mofo on the planet will understand that to start a nuclear war is to ensure their own death.
I hope his views have changed: link to popsci.com
And computer models said that mortgage-backed securities and associated derivative instruments couldn’t possibly blow up.
Win till you glow!
My initial thought:
General Jack Ripper … leaning back in his chair … cigar clamped in his mouth … hands folded on chest … with a satisfied smile …
So to summarize:
Some guy said something 40 years ago, about a country that no longer exists, about weapons that no longer exist in a situation that no longer exists.
But this is news because it fits that narrative. Orange man is bad an is a warmonger. And wants to nuke Russia (or others) even though, himself, is a puppet of Russia…wait, this is getting confusing…
Warren used to be a free market republican.
Biden used to be very pro-life.
Funny, I don’t remember any Mish articles on this.
Funny, to most people nuclear weapons might as well be unicorns, theoretical, but as one of the very few here that has ever actually seen a nuclear weapon they are not theoretical to me. (22nd Bomb Wing March AFB Sept. 1976 – Jan. 1980)
To have a policy of MAD was the one thing that supposedly made the use of nuclear weapons unthinkable. It meant that to use them was the guaranteed obliteration of your own nation. It was the only restraint and last resort.
Kupperman and his ilk that advocate use is not MAD are the most dangerous people on the planet and while very few would be stupid enough to believe his insane theories and fantasy scenarios, it is still a major step and dangerous escalation towards our ultimate destruction to promote him beyond the level of tinfoil hat wearing, prepper blogging, nut case.
And dragging in sickening theory about Zionists controlling these matters is just as stupid. If Zionists were smart enough to gain control of our monetary, civil government, and military apparatus globally they would be smart enough to know that any nuclear exchange would render their planet as dead as the moon. Such moronic speculation is unworthy of a rational discussion of economics and current events hosted my Mish, it belongs in the fevered imaginations of Zero Hedgers and Storm Front dicks.
So I assume you do not agree a nuke war is winnable? Why not stick to the subject instead of getting into all the “what about isms”?
There is one party who has always refused to even think about denuclearization, and that is the party who is also the only one to actually have used them (to scare the USSR, despite the fairy tales in your history text book). The party that thinks proliferation is extremely risky and does everything to retain a monopoly is also the only party that has ever talked about “winning” a war with them. Do your homework. Every initiative to have a meeting to even discuss a framework to discuss denuclearization has been rebuffed by the USA, usually as the sole dissident. Every other party has declared that they are willing to work towards denuclearization.
The SALT Agreement (later to be come SALT I) was signed by Nixon and Russia. This was the first comprehensive nuclear weapons limiting treaty between the two countries.
The INF Treaty was signed by Reagan and Russia.
And Bush signed the Nuclear Arms Treaty which cut 2/3 of of nuclear weapons in both America and Russia.
Yes, those limited the number of weapons, but there was no talk of denuclearization. There was still enough to blow us to smithereens, so little limit to the actual danger posed
For M.A.D. to be effective, everyone else must understand that your country has at least as much advantage as they do in a nuclear exchange, probably more. They must also understand that opposing countries will not survive such an exchange, and possibly your country will survive. Who better to make such statements publicly than a 35 year old mouthpiece who is a person old enough to be listened to and young enough to be dismissed as not completely credible? That way, everyone will still be able to sleep at night.
When I think about how my own attitude has changed in that period of time, there is little comparison. I am inclined to think this news release is nothing more than a political hit piece.
How dare anyone question the believe (religious) in MAD. When Bush abandoned the ABM treaty in 2004 (colossal blunder) it opened the way for a future anti missile system. The balance of power (terror) is over and the future looks bleak. Ending the ABM treaty was (in my opinion) one of the primary reasons US Russian relations went south. Simply look at Putin’s newest weapons all meant to counter Ballistic Missile Defense. Gasp! the world is in grave danger.
Whether one agrees with the opinion or not, if you were alive at the time (early 1980s) quite a few experts at the time were questioning how many Soviet missiles would actually launch if the Soviets pushed the launch button. Many others questioned the accuracy of their guidance systems — a missile aimed at LA might likely end up exploding in a desert or over the ocean and lead to far fewer casualties than if it exploded over a city. A lot of US cities are constructed out of concrete, which holds up better than the wood structures in Hiroshima — and a lot of people in Hiroshima survived.
Don’t forget the number of Soviet subs that malfunctioned in one manner or another at the time. Whether correct or not, US missiles were believed to be more accurate and more likely to accurately launch. That was the thinking at the time, even if some of it turned out to be wrong in hindsight.
A lot of media pundits and armchair warriors think they know the answer of what would have happened. Luckily the world never found out. But after the fall of the Soviet Union, it turned out that many Soviet missile silos were filled with water. Many missiles hadn’t been tested or warmed up in years… in other words, a lot of their ICBMs never could have left the launch tube.
If Kupperman had access to classified intel about soviet missiles at the time, it would have effected his thinking on the matter. The reporter at the time would not have a clue about classified info about Soviet missile readiness, nor what effect that had on anyone’s thinking.
That would make all quotes in non-classified interviews very, very out of context — even if we give the reporter the benefit of the doubt that he/she wasn’t spinning the story to their own political viewpoint. I was trying to be polite suggesting the quote might be out of context; it most likely was.
Today, 30-40 years after that quote — foreign missiles are more accurate and more likely to launch if ordered. There are more than two sides, making any deterrent strategy a lot more complicated. We also know more about the long term health consequences of radiation exposure.
I don’t know how Mish expects the quality of federal bureaucrats to improve if he is going to hold them to impossible standards. I doubt any human can anticipate what technical advances will happen 30-40 years in the future.
Kupperman’s thinking today might or might not be questionable. He might be a warmonger like Bolton. He might be a bad advisor to Trump like Bolton was. Kupperman might be bad for the job… But if we want better advisors to Trump (and all Presidents), we the people need to be a lot smarter about how we critique nominees. I am not sure Mish’s post fits the bill. The HuffPo character assasination definitely does not.
In an article published by Project Syndicate, Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister, and Vice-Chancellor from 1998-2005 writes;
In this new environment, the “rationality of deterrence” maintained by the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War has eroded. Now, if nuclear proliferation increases, the threshold for using nuclear weapons will likely fall.
I agree with Fischer that today a great number of people have come to accept the idea of a “small or limited’ nuclear war as acceptable. The reason they feel this way may center around the fact they have not given it enough thought. The article below warns of the danger a major nuclear war may damage the world to where those surviving will face lives that are greatly diminished in quality.
Nuclear war winnable? Of course it is. I have little doubt Russia will win it. After all, America is being militarily crushed by uneducated goat herders in Afghanistan and hasn’t won a war in 60 years. Only a Delusioniod would think it can win a war against Russia.
not out of context. they posted the interview. but it was long ago
I think by classical sense, he meant a pyrrhic victory; the related quote was “if we are victorious in one more [such] battle…we shall be utterly ruined.
It seems to me he was clear that he meant “technically a victory, costly beyond our ability to pay more than once.”
His colleagues over in the math department spent decades studying game theory and John Nash’s theories on which MAD is based. They couldn’t find any flaws in Nash’s theories. All over the country, academics without a TV show studied Nash’s game theory and found it solid.
Most importantly, MAD appears to have worked (at least when it was two powers pointing missiles at each other). A disturbing number of international incidents, many of which could have led to nuclear war, but they did not.
A truly failed theory is the United Nations, which was supposed to prevent wars. Korea, Vietnam, India-Pakistan several times. Iran-Iraq. France invading Algeria. England vs Argentina over Falklands. That is just a few that made the US papers, there were many many others. The UN is a failed concept. Sagan supported that.
I remember Carl Sagan comparing the MAD defence strategy to two kids sitting in a fuel tank awash with fuel, each periodically threatening to strike a match. It’s barking mad, but it’s working. Maybe both sides, or all sides, need a sprinkling of Kuppermans among their bureaucrats to convince the narcissistic alpha male warmongers everywhere that we are indeed barking mad and not afraid of matches.
HuffPo is a garbage source, so I am inclined to give this guy every leeway. he may turn out to be Bolton 2.0, but I will wait for a reliable source. Not HuffPo
Is this quote from 30-40 years ago even accurate? Its the HuffPo making the claim. Was he quoted out of context? Very likely. Its HuffPo.
Was he talking trash to the Soviets? Almost everyone at the time was. I seriously doubt the morons at HuffPo even understand the concept. Is the alleged reporter even old enough to understand the cold war era?
Its also very likely Kupperman’s opinion changed over the years, regardless of what he said at the time. The technology and accuracy of missiles has changed 10000x over the 30-40 years since the alleged statement.
The reason the federal government is staffed by crooks and morons is (at least in part) because the most talented people don’t want to have their characters assassinated by “communication majors” with nothing to lose.
Too many misquotes of late. Too many quotes taken out of context. Even in papers that used to be reputable way back when.
“The reason the federal government is staffed by crooks and morons is (at least in part)”
If so, a very small part.
In all organizations, those who focus the most singlemindedly on solely what it takes to climb the ranks, as opposed to anything else (like for example doing something useful and good) will, surprise-surprise, be the ones who climb to the highest rank. Wasting time and resources on being a nice guy, or even a bad guy, i.e. on being any other sort of guy than the “winning” guy, simply assures you don’t win. While the guy who focused solely on doing whatever it takes to win…., tah-dah…, wins.
Mindless babble about “public servants” and “democracy” in no way changes that. All it does, is possibly alter the rules of the game to be won a bit, compared to traditional warrior societies, or elk herds, where the physically strongest emerged on top. Top self-advancer still comes out on top. Every.Single.Time. Forever.
And, while focusing on being “bad” is just as detrimental as focusing on being “good,” the traits associated with completely unfettered self advancement at the expense of absolutely all else, hence the traits resulting high rank in ANY organization of any size, are generally not the traits most people associate wit those of being a nice guy.
So, why don’t we just toss the dice and see which possibility the stunning quote from Mr. Kupperman accurately represents? He is either a madman, as superficially indicated, or he is a jester, or another grim conman and a madman. Let’s support and celebrate his appointment so we can find out which.
Does anybody still wonder why the world hate the USA so much
Mostly I think they envy our health care and cuisine.
and freedom fries
Americans love this rhetoric and will, of course, reply “if they all hate us so much, why are they all trying to come here?”
Bring on Yellowstone.
But, but, but… we are a PEACE LOVING country. Remember George Carlin’s comment: “Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.”
Kupperman is an acolyte of John Bolton. Bolton was pulled due to his not goading the Donald into war with Iran (to fight Israel’s wars for them). The Zio’s will have no problem sacrificing the USA for Israel’s survival:
“Kupperman worked at two defense contractors, Lockheed Martin and Boeing; he was the vice president for business development for missile defense systems for Boeing and the vice president of Washington Space Operations for Lockheed Martin Corporation.
From 2001 to 2010, Kupperman was on the board of directors for the Center for Security Policy. In late 2014, he was the treasurer of the Bolton for New Hampshire PAC.
In April 2018, after Bolton was chosen to be the National Security Advisor, Kupperman took a temporary leadership post on the National Security Council. In January 2019, he became the Deputy National Security Advisor, replacing Mira Ricardel, who had left that position in mid-November 2018. On September 10, 2019, the date when John Bolton departed from his position of United States National Security Advisor, Kupperman was made interim United States National Security Advisor.”
To be fair, we do not know how much of this is what Kupperman actually believes and how much of it is posturing aimed at the USSR’s Politburo.
For context, Mao Zedong was famous for engaging in this type of rhetoric, but never came close to nuking anybody.
Sure, but he wasn’t a crazy Zio.
There is no USSR, there is no politburo. Tsar Vladimir knows posturing bullshit when he hears it. No person in our government should be allowed to draw a paycheck from the treasury when they claim 20 million dead Americans is an acceptable loss. PERIOD!
Quoted comments are from the early 1980s.
Did this fool Kupperman think Dr Strangelove was a documentary?
“Mr President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks”.
How does ANYONE who advocates nuclear war with Russia because “only 20 million Americans will die” get a government salary?
The most inaccessible fortress is the human skull
Marx
Marx was a tool of the Rothschilds to ensure socialist countries would have a central bank.
Doesn’t mean he was wrong with this comment.
Marx’ skull was no fortress, he was a polymath. He was the first economist to try to describe the history of economics from an empirical point of view in terms of the conditions and social dynamics that led to the development of various systems in the course of time. Before him, you only had dogmatic descriptions (eternally true) which paid no attention to actual history.
So Marx gets an A for effort? Lol
“Before him, you only had dogmatic descriptions (eternally true) which paid no attention to actual history.”
Which is still all you have. As that is all there is to have.
Human history, as it “empirically” (per historians approximations and (hopefully educated) guesses based on limited observation) unfolded, is no more generalizable than the specific history of winning lottery numbers at a specific state lottery. All it is, is a record of events which obviously (+- accuracy of above alluded to guesses from highly limited observation) could happen. It says nothing about whether others were/are just as likely.
As such, it is certainly of historical interest; but fundamentally flawed as anything to base both policy and anything resembling a universal understanding of economics on.
There is no room for emiprii in economics. (At least not over finite sized observation sets. Observe absolutely all interactions, from the literal dawn of time until eternity, and you may just about be getting somewhere. Not somewhere particularly practical, though….)
For anyone limited to a finite set of observations, “proving,” as well as “disproving,” economics empirically, is exactly analogous to, hence exactly as futile as, empirically “proving,” or “disproving” God. I.e, it is either an attempt to pull the rug over some designated sap’s eyes; or just another one for the ever growing collection of “proofs” that cocksure, shallow minded, naive, logically challenged idiots, will indeed be idiots.
Stuki, the historic evidence is that freer markets generate vastly more widespread prosperity than controlled systems ever have. This is crucial evidence for inducing the nature of capitalism versus statism.
I admit I can’t make heads or tails of your claim that there is no room for observation in the science of economics.