WASHINGTON DC 15 JUNE 2026

PODCAST DISCUSSION

NSD Podcasts

PODCAST DISCUSSION - The Fall of 2022 — And the Nuclear Crisis Still to Come

A Discussion from the Archive — Released Today…

Listen now

3 days ago · The National Security Desk

(U) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The US Secretary of Defense made an urgent call to his counterpart in Moscow on October 21, 2022. Austin told Shoigu: [1]

“We know you are contemplating the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Any use of nuclear weapons on any scale against anybody would be seen by the United States and the world as a world-changing event. There is no scale of nuclear weapons use that we could overlook or that the world could overlook. If you did this, all the restraints that we have been operating under in Ukraine would be reconsidered. This would isolate Russia on the world stage to a degree you Russians cannot fully appreciate.”

Shoigu responded that he did not take kindly to being threatened. Austin replied:

“Mr. Minister, I am the leader of the most powerful military in the history of the world. I don’t make threats.”

Nuclear war was averted. Just. Why did the world nearly end? Thirty thousand Russian conscripts, stuck on a riverbank — just another failure in a long line of Putin’s spectacular miscalculations that led to the war in Ukraine and that continue to threaten the internal stability of Russia, and thus the survival of the Putin regime.

New signs are emerging that far more serious, regime-ending consequences are on the horizon for Putin. What does this episode tell us about how the near future might unfold? Will the endgame in Moscow bring about the end of civilization as we know it? The National Security Desk assesses that the challenge this time around may be an order of magnitude more serious — and that the United States government is unfit for the moment.

Vladimir Putin backed down. He calculated that President Biden was genuinely and completely committed to following through on that threat. Biden’s conviction to do so was only credible in the full knowledge that it would trigger the escalation ladder to general nuclear war between the United States and the heavily armed Russian Federation.

(U) SECTION I — MOSCOW? WE CAN HEAR YOU

In October 2022, senior officers of the Russian military held conversations about when and how Russia might use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Not whether to threaten one — Moscow had been doing that for months. When, and how. American intelligence was listening, and what it heard put the White House on a war footing that lasted into the winter.

Some thirty thousand Russian troops were pinned against the west bank of the Dnipro River at Kherson, their supply bridges cut, with the Ukrainian army grinding toward them — on land Putin had formally annexed into Russia three weeks earlier. If that army was encircled and destroyed, American intelligence judged the odds that Putin would reach for a nuclear weapon at fifty percent — a probability that had spiked from five percent, then ten, as the Kharkiv offensive transformed the battlefield. [2] A coin flip. Moscow feared encirclement. Kyiv feared a trap. Washington feared the bomb.

Public and official interest in nuclear weapons has atrophied since the end of the Cold War — the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq eroded what little remained — and very few people understand how close the world has come on a number of occasions. The Cold War produced near-misses the public only learned about decades later: Russia had tactical nuclear weapons on Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Washington had no idea until it was revealed at the 1992 Havana conference. There was Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet duty officer who decided alone, on a September night in 1983, that the hundreds of American missiles appearing on his screen had to be a computer error; and the NATO exercise Able Archer, weeks afterward, which part of the Soviet leadership read as possible cover for a real first strike. But the most recent close call is not a Cold War story. It happened three and a half years ago, in the first autumn of the war in Ukraine. It is documented, named, dated, and confirmed at the highest level — and it has produced almost no reaction at all.

CIA Director William Burns confirmed it publicly in 2024: [3]

“There was a moment in the fall of 2022 when I think there was a genuine risk of a potential use of tactical nuclear weapons.”

Jim Sciutto’s reporting from senior Biden administration officials describes a White House “preparing rigorously” for a Russian strike from late summer onward; one official told him: [4]

“The fear was not just hypothetical — it was also based on some information that we picked up.”

Bob Woodward’s War reported the intelligence beneath the alarm — the fifty percent estimate, tied to the trapped army at Kherson. [2] The RAND Corporation has studied why Putin held back. Ulrich Kühn has published the only peer-reviewed study of the episode. [5] George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment, grading every Russian nuclear threat of the war against a formal assessment framework, found exactly one that qualified as urgent: September–October 2022. [6]

None of this is secret; it is simply unabsorbed. NSD wrote the warnings in 2022, and yet the volume of recent official confirmations surprised even NSD. There was no moment of reckoning to miss. The confirmations arrived one at a time — a CIA director’s aside in 2024, a Woodward book that October, a journal article in 2025, a Carnegie study in 2026 — and each landed without an echo, into a news environment too overwhelmed with noise and manufactured urgency to notice. In place of a reckoning, a comforting story took hold, and it rests on two claims. The first: it was always a bluff. The second: it didn’t happen because it can’t happen — the nuclear taboo held. Both claims hold the comfortable story up. Both are wrong about what actually occurred.

Russia’s invasion had stumbled from its first week, but in September 2022 it began to collapse. Ukraine’s counteroffensive at Kharkiv routed the Russian army across thousands of square kilometers in days. On 21 September, Putin announced mobilization and delivered the most explicit nuclear threat of the war: [7]

“When the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people. This is not a bluff.”

Nine days later he built the trap door beneath those words, formally annexing four Ukrainian regions into the Russian Federation. The significance was legal, not ceremonial. Territory Ukraine was actively liberating was now, on paper, Russia — and Russian doctrine reserves nuclear weapons for threats to Russia itself. Putin had wired his own red line to a battlefield he was losing.

The battlefield then closed in on the wire. Kherson was the only regional capital Russia had captured in the entire war, annexed three weeks before, and the thirty thousand men defending it were trapped against a kilometer-wide river with their crossings under fire. Inside Russia the pressure to escalate was open and loud — when the town of Lyman fell on 1 October, the Chechen warlord Kadyrov publicly demanded the use of a low-yield nuclear weapon. [8] Washington’s alarm broke into public view on 6 October, when President Biden told a New York fundraiser: [9]

“We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis.”

Under a conventional presidency, a statement of that weight from a sitting American president on nuclear matters is itself a signal — one that analysts who have spent careers reading presidential language know how to interpret. Presidents do not invoke Armageddon casually, or should not. The precision of presidential language on nuclear questions is — or should be — the most carefully calibrated communication in public life, because its audience is not only the American public but every government with a stake in what Washington will and will not do. A president who uses the word in public has decided the cost of saying it is less than the cost of silence. That calculation was real in October 2022. The current administration’s approach to public communication — where the most inflammatory, self-contradicting, and evidently false statements are made as a matter of daily routine — has badly eroded exactly that signal discipline. When Washington says something nuclear, the world has been trained to treat it as noise. The United States has created for itself precisely the boy-who-cried-wolf problem that Russia created with 135 empty threats: serial bluster that destroys the audience’s capacity to recognize the genuine signal when it arrives. That erosion is a security cost that cannot be easily calculated, and it is not unconnected from the personal relationship between the current American president and the man in the Kremlin. Biden’s October 2022 warning was the genuine article. It deserves to be read as what it was.

Behind the scenes the machinery was already running. Austin placed the call to Shoigu, the transcript of which opens this essay. [1] The chairman of the Joint Chiefs spoke to the chief of the Russian General Staff days later. The national security adviser worked quiet channels into the Kremlin that had been kept open for exactly this moment. Washington widened the information campaign, enlisting the two capitals Moscow could not afford to ignore. India’s Prime Minister Modi had already told Putin to his face in September: “Today’s era is not an era of war.” [10] India’s defense minister told Moscow directly — on a call the Russians themselves had requested — that nuclear weapons must not be used. China’s Xi Jinping said the same in public in early November. At the G20 in Bali on 16 November, the major powers declared, with Russia’s own signature attached, that “the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.” [11]

(U) SECTION II — THE BIDEN REVELATION

In the weeks before the invasion, the Biden White House did something governments never do: it published highly classified intelligence — telling the world that Russia was preparing fake atrocities and staged attacks as pretexts for war. The disclosures most likely cost real sources and methods, and they gutted the false-flag playbook before it could run. In late October 2022 the same play appeared again: Russian officials phoned four Western capitals claiming Ukraine was about to detonate a radiological “dirty bomb” — the classic shape of a pretext under construction — and Washington and its allies called it out publicly within hours. The claim died on the table; nothing ever went off. Then, on 2 November, came the boldest disclosure of all. The New York Times, sourced to U.S. officials, revealed the intelligence that had driven the autumn’s alarm: senior Russian military officers had discussed when and how a tactical nuclear weapon might be used. Understand what that disclosure cost. The ability to hear nuclear deliberations inside the Kremlin is among the crown jewels of American intelligence — the most precious intelligence a nation can possess, the kind that takes decades to build and one leak to destroy. Governments do not spend the crown jewels on a bluff. Spending them was itself evidence of how serious the moment was, and it was also a message, aimed straight at Moscow: we can hear you. Deterrence only works where it can be seen — it is why American nuclear forces do so much of their business in the open, with announced bomber flights, test ICBM launches, publicized exercises and submarines surfacing in foreign ports. The leak applied that old principle to intelligence itself.

By then the crisis had already crested. On 27 October, Putin told the Valdai Discussion Club — his annual international forum for signaling Russia’s strategic position to a curated audience of foreign analysts, academics, and officials — that there was “no need” for nuclear weapons in Ukraine: [12]

“There is no sense in it, neither political nor military.”

For a dictator who has built his entire political persona on the projection of uncompromising strength, delivering a public nuclear stand-down from his most prestigious platform was a significant loss of face — the kind that any autocrat, but Putin in particular, would have felt keenly. To say there is “no sense” in using the weapons he had been threatening for months was to confirm that he had been threatening them. For all Moscow’s lack of nuclear signal discipline — the 135 empty threats that had destroyed its credibility — this rare instance of precise, deliberate communication from Putin himself carried exactly the weight that serial bluffing had squandered. The climb-down was under way. The audience was not the academics in the room. It was Washington and its allies, who had been waiting to see whether the pressure campaign had worked.

On 9 November, Russia announced the withdrawal of its entire force from the west bank of the Dnipro. Over three nights, thirty thousand men crossed the river. The encirclement — the condition attached to the use of nuclear weapons — never happened. The CIA director flew to Ankara five days later to tell his Russian counterpart, face to face, what would follow any future use. The most dangerous nuclear episode in sixty years ended without most of the world ever noticing it had begun.

(U) SECTION III — BLUFFS ARE A PATHWAY TO ARMAGEDDON

Weak and scared after it lost the Cold War, Russia has turned to the only threat it had left once its conventional military withered from 1991 onwards. The National Security Desk catalogue, Russian Nuclear Threats 1999–2025, [13] runs to 111 entries from Yeltsin’s first warning onward, under a subtitle that states the finding: zero credibility. By VOA’s count, top Russian officials issued 135 nuclear-related statements between February 2022 and December 2024 alone. [14] A saber rattled that often stops advertising resolve and starts advertising weakness. All of that is true — and it is exactly why the fall of 2022 is so dangerous to misread. This is the boy who cried wolf, played out at planetary stakes. When everything is a threat and nothing happens, people lose the ability to notice when the danger is real. The fall of 2022 was the wolf. Filing the one genuine episode back under “bluff” is precisely the mistake the fable exists to warn against.

The profession of arms is one of the most specialized of all human endeavors. The profession of nuclear arms sits in a class of its own beyond that — a discipline whose logic is so counter-intuitive, so discontinuous from conventional military thinking, that it must be taught and practiced as a distinct body of knowledge. Nuclear deterrence does not work like conventional coercion. It does not reward aggression; it rewards credibility. Its central mechanism is the adversary’s belief — in your willingness to act — and that belief, once eroded, is nearly impossible to rebuild. This is what Russia destroyed with 135 threats and zero follow-through. An adversary who has watched every red line crossed without consequence has learned, correctly, to discount the next threat — and will go on discounting them. A power that bluffs its way through a hundred crises has spent the only currency that actually matters. One of the core arguments of this essay, and of NSD’s work in the unconventional nuclear warfare domain more broadly, is that the institutional knowledge required to think clearly about nuclear deterrence has atrophied badly in the West since the Cold War. The result is exactly what the record above shows: an establishment that reached reflexively for conventional military judgment in a nuclear situation and, in doing so, almost failed to notice when the danger was real.

Resting all hope on the nuclear taboo is even more dangerous. Taboos do not get war-gamed by general staffs. What separates the fall of 2022 from the surrounding theater is that it left fingerprints: actual officers, in actual meetings, working through the when and the how. You do not convene that meeting about something unthinkable. You convene it about something you are thinking about. American intelligence was eavesdropping on Russian commanders. Leaks to the press about this episode — again the Biden technique — took pains to note that Putin was absent from the collected conversations. Generals do not freelance on the most dangerous question in the country; men who do have a way of falling out of open windows. The far more believable explanation is that the General Staff was doing exactly what it believed the boss wanted: running the options, below the president, who would only be brought in at the moment of decision, with his name kept off the record until then. That is how the Russian system is built to operate. Both Washington and Moscow had compelling reasons — different in origin, identical in effect — to keep Putin’s name away from the deliberations in the telling, and understanding why is central to understanding how President Biden managed the crisis. Publicly naming Putin as the man weighing nuclear use would have cornered the president and burned the off-ramp the whole strategy depended on. The leak said we can hear you, and saying it to the generals was safer than saying it to the dictator. Moscow needed the distance to preserve the option of climbing down, which is what it ultimately did. Every one of those readings is more credible than frustrated generals gaming Armageddon behind the dictator’s back — which is exactly what conventional analysis lazily assumed to be the case.

The fall of 2022 was a real-world nuclear combat decision.

Russia did not hold back because the threat was hollow, and it did not hold back because a moral firewall stopped it. It held back because the costs and benefits were weighed, in the circumstances that actually existed, and the answer was no. A nuclear strike could not fix the front: Ukrainian forces were advancing spread out, offering no massed target, and the blast would have fallen on land Moscow had just written into its own constitution as Russia. It risked bringing NATO directly into the war — which meant either Russia’s defeat and Putin’s fall, or escalation into Mutually Assured Destruction. China and India, the two economic lifelines keeping the sanctioned war machine afloat, publicly warned Moscow not to use its weapons. Putin’s own Valdai statement was not the language of taboo - but of cold calculation — an assessment of whether the weapon would actually achieve anything, not a statement of moral scruple. And it was delivered from a stage designed to be heard. Any leader of his type would have felt the weight of saying those words in public. That he said them at all is the measure of how seriously he weighed what would have followed if he had not.

Nearly this entire record runs through American officials — Burns, Woodward, the November leak to the New York Times — and those officials themselves disagreed over whether the intercepted talk was real intent or routine contingency work. Or perhaps that was their cover for revealing it. What is not in doubt is the response of the world beyond Washington. The warnings came from American intelligence. The response came from Xi and Modi speaking out against nuclear use. That convergence of independent actors is the answer to anyone who suspects Washington had simply frightened itself.

(U) SECTION IV — OPERATION VULTURE

The pattern has a precedent. In the spring of 1954, French forces besieged at Dien Bien Phu appealed to Washington for intervention. The Eisenhower administration gave the request serious consideration. The planning that emerged — codenamed Operation Vulture — included the option of tactical nuclear weapons against Viet Minh artillery positions surrounding the valley. [15] The concept reached the National Security Council. The conclusion Eisenhower and his advisers reached was straightforward: a nuclear strike would not work. The geography was all wrong — Dien Bien Phu sat in a narrow mountain valley, the enemy artillery was spread across surrounding ridgelines, French troops were intermingled with the very positions that would need to be destroyed. A weapon dropped there could not deliver a decisive military result; it would kill French soldiers and level the valley, but it would not save the garrison. The political cost of being the first nation to use nuclear weapons since Hiroshima was incalculable. The British refused to participate in any intervention, removing the cover of allied consensus. President Eisenhower decided against action. Dien Bien Phu fell in May 1954 without American intervention. The nuclear option had been considered at the highest levels — and set aside, not on moral grounds, but because it would not have worked. The same reasoning that said no in a valley in Indochina in 1954 said no again at Kherson in 2022. The situations were different. The conclusion was the same.

That verdict was partly a verdict of technology. The nuclear weapons of 1954 were blunt instruments — fixed yield, no terrain navigation, blast radii that could not distinguish enemy artillery on a ridgeline from allied troops in the valley below. The geometry that defeated the nuclear option at Dien Bien Phu was a problem those weapons simply could not solve. Today, two developments have moved simultaneously in opposite directions. Modern nuclear weapons have acquired the precision that 1954 lacked — dial-a-yield warheads, terrain-following delivery, approach azimuths selectable by the planner. But modern conventional precision weapons have also acquired the capability to achieve the same tactical result without going nuclear at all. Today’s Dien Bien Phu gets a conventional solution. Had 1954 possessed today’s nuclear precision without today’s conventional alternatives, the valley calculation might have returned a different answer.

There are a small range of strategic conditions that make the use of tactical weapons plausible. For example, to target Usama bin Laden in Tora Bora. A remote steep mountain range in the Hindu Kush, far from any population centers, and undefended by any nuclear power’s promise of extended deterrence. The use of an ICBM is out. The arc of travel of an ICBM launched from the United States at Afghanistan would look to both Russia and China as a sneak attack. Nor can the terminal flight path of an ICBM negotiate contours of mountain ranges changing its approach characteristics. An AGM-86B overcomes all those limitations. A nuclear armed air launched cruise missile, with a dial-a-yield warhead (5 kt to 150kt), used against targets in a valley of steep hard rock, flying in at a particular azimuth and detonated at a certain height above ground, would eviscerate anyone hiding in tunnels in those mountains without generating fallout. Bin Laden arrived in Tora Bora about ten weeks after 9/11. This was the absolute apex of global support for the US and considerable fear in many capitals that had offered permissible environments for al Qaeda. Nuclear use in this context was called for. Not only would it have killed UBL it would have signaled to all that the US would not tolerate any gamesmanship from any actor on the world stage. Instead, UBL became a shining light and inspiration to every bad actor anywhere for evading the might of the United States. All the copycat terror groups and their state sponsors that sprung up all over the world in the decades after 9/11 would have remained silent in abject fear had UBL been killed hiding in his cave.

(U) SECTION V — KHERSON WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT TEST

The Kherson calculation was never run under full pressure. First, Kherson had none of Tora Bora’s enabling conditions: no remote terrain channeling and concentrating the detonation, no single isolated target set, no hard rock geology amplifying the effect, no absence of a nuclear power’s extended deterrence commitment over the target — and critically, land Moscow had just written into its own constitution as Russia. Second, the risk was conditional — if the encirclement came. It never came. Ukraine advanced slowly; Russia withdrew in good order; and the moment the west bank emptied, the one scenario in which a nuclear weapon bought Russia anything ceased to exist. One senior U.S. official described the threshold in almost clinical terms: [16]

“If significant numbers of Russian forces were overrun — if their lives were shattered as such — that was a sort of precursor to a potential threat directly to Russian territory or the Russian state.”

The world never saw the answer to the hard question. It saw the answer to the easy one because the operational crisis was managed. The Russians escaped the trap. Accordingly, it is an error to cite these events as proof that deterrence worked.

The successful retreat nullified the nuclear option — it was not proof of Russian nuclear restraint. Offered the choice between losing Kherson slowly with the army intact or losing it catastrophically and facing the nuclear question, the system paid in territory to make the question disappear. The officer who announced it on state television, in a staged exchange with the defense minister, was General Sergei Surovikin — known as “General Armageddon” for his record of ferocious conduct in Syria and Chechnya. The nickname earned by destruction served, on this occasion, to prevent it: Surovikin’s recommendation to withdraw for purely military reasons removed the very trigger condition that could have forced the nuclear question. The man named for Armageddon, acting on logistics, kept the world from it. The west bank of the river had been doomed since summer, when Ukrainian rockets cut the river crossings, so withdrawal could be presented inside the regime as military necessity rather than a nuclear flinch.

Off-ramps work when they come with cover stories. And the cover story was built collectively, by parties who never coordinated. There is no evidence of a secret deal to let the Russians escape. Moscow feared encirclement. Kyiv feared a trap. Washington feared the bomb. US–Ukrainian joint war-gaming that summer had talked Kyiv down from a grand southern offensive into the narrow push on Kherson; Washington withheld long-range missiles and deep-targeting intelligence precisely because it feared where deep strikes might lead; Ukrainian commanders, suspecting the announced withdrawal was bait for an ambush, advanced carefully and said so on the record. Three different fears converged on the same outcome: thirty thousand men crossing a river, largely unmolested, over three nights. Sun Tzu’s golden bridge was built by convergence — which is the more unsettling conclusion, because it means the most important nuclear off-ramp of the war was under no one’s control. By all publicly available accounts, it appears to have been an accident of circumstances. Had the Russians failed to retreat in time — had the Ukrainians advanced just a bit faster — the decision point would have arrived, and the answer could have been different.

The deepest Western error of the war was an obsession with not provoking Putin with new or longer-ranged weapons. Would ATACMS, then Storm Shadow, then F-16s provoke Moscow? Every weapons-based red line turned out to be fiction, while the one genuinely dangerous moment of the war was produced by something nobody was arguing about: the shape of the battle itself. A surrounded army, not a missile type. Weapons-based red lines were bluffs because no weapon changed Russia’s arithmetic. The situation on the ground is the arithmetic. The cautious officials who rationed hardware and the hawks who said the caution was all self-imposed were arguing about the wrong thing. How you win shapes whether the loser goes nuclear. Managing the speed of victory is managing the risk of nuclear war. Any future campaign built to rapidly annihilate the army of a nuclear power should sit with that sentence for a long moment.

Restraint was a calculated decision that could have gone the other way had the circumstances been different.

If the bomb stayed in the silo because the math said so, then the restraint was conditional, not permanent. Change the conditions — a battlefield where a nuclear strike does buy a decisive result, an adversary whose foreign backing has dried up, a regime that no longer has China and India to lose — and the same rational actor, running the same process, returns a different answer. The 2022 answer was no only because Russia still had things it could not afford to lose. That matters, because those things have been slipping ever since.

(U) SECTION VI — THE RECORD IN REAL TIME

The National Security Desk did not assemble this picture in hindsight, as the timestamps prove.

MAD MAN! [17] was published on 30 March 2022, five weeks into the war and six months before the peak of the crisis. It was the first thing Unconventional Nuclear Warfare (UNW) ever published — the page itself was only two days old, created because events were demanding a place to say what follows. The argument: Putin is not mad but logically wrong, and that is the more dangerous diagnosis. A madman might be unreachable; a rational actor is reachable by logic right up to the moment the logic flips. The question that piece put on the table was the one the field then spent a year not asking: when a rational, cornered leader has nothing left but nuclear weapons, when does it become rational to use them — when does the calculation shift from “winning” to “not losing everything”?

Three weeks later, Tactical Nuke on Kyiv [18] (20 April 2022) laid out the logic of first use below the threshold that triggers mutually assured destruction: the side that fires a single tactical weapon hands the agonizing choice to the other side, which must pick between a weak conventional reply that invites more use and a nuclear reply that opens the road to general war.

Gen. Barry McCaffrey — a retired four-star and one of the most serious military voices in American public life, speaking here for what was then the entire Western consensus — replied to NSD: [19]

“Utter madness. Illogical. The use of any nuclear weapon by Russia invites a dreadful escalation. Russia would not survive a nuclear exchange they initiated. Putin’s survival at stake… not Russia. Would he create Armageddon as his final act. The Russian political and military elites need to step up to this.”

NSD’s answer, in the thread, in April 2022:

“It might be mad and illogical to you. But you are not Putin.”

That exchange deserves careful reading — not as social media provocation, but as a serious exchange between people who understood exactly what they were discussing and what was at stake. In the national security world, particularly under the pressure of a live nuclear crisis, people who have spent careers on these problems communicate with a bluntness that can read as bruising in other contexts. Neither McCaffrey’s verdict nor NSD’s reply was reckless. Both were serious. McCaffrey was not refusing to think — his comment runs a real argument, and its final sentence even reaches for the same brake this essay arrives at below: the men around Putin. But his argument rests on a hidden assumption: that any nuclear use, however small, triggers the full MAD exchange. NSD’s position was that a single battlefield weapon was below the threshold that triggers general nuclear war — and that the side that fires first hands the impossible choice to its opponent. That was the real disagreement. Not analysis against reflex — but a genuine dispute about how deterrence actually operates when the question is a single low-yield bomb rather than an intercontinental missile. The two-word verdict still matters, though, because the reflex it expresses — illogical, therefore not worth thinking through — is what kept the West, for one crucial season, from working out the very scenario its opponent was actively working through. NSD named the mechanism that April: fatal cultural mirroring. We find the option unimaginable, so we assume he must too. But what if he has nothing left to lose? Would Hitler, shaking and sweating in his bunker in Berlin, encircled by Russian forces, have taken others with him if he could?

The autumn then settled the exchange. On the analysis, the record vindicates NSD: the Kremlin’s own staff war-gamed when and how to use the weapon. An option that a general staff war-games has, by definition, been taken seriously. It was considered — and rejected — on cost. Not morality. That is the opposite of illogical. It is a calculation that happened to return: no. On the outcome, the record is just as plain: he did not use it, and McCaffrey’s bottom line held. But look at why it held. Washington spent the autumn making his assumption true by force of effort — Austin’s devastating call with Shoigu, the calls between the generals, the quiet channels, Burns to Ankara, Xi and Modi enlisted, the G20 mobilized. Along the way the US improvised something it had never offered a country outside its alliances: a private, unwritten shadow of the American nuclear umbrella, extended over Ukraine, deliberately vague about means but unmistakable in meaning — use it, and you answer to us. It was extended deterrence — the offer of a nuclear shield to a country that is not a formal treaty ally — it is hard to know what else to call it. The conclusion that nuclear use would be suicidal for Russia was not a fact of nature. It was manufactured, week by week, by the most intensive nuclear crisis management since 1962. The fact Putin didn’t use it tells you what the answer was in those circumstances. It tells you nothing about what the answer will be next time. If Putin contemplated nuclear use to save 30,000 troops, how much further would his thought train go if he was contemplating his own survival?

By late October the president of the United States was invoking Armageddon at a public event. NSD published a new assessment on 30 October that went further than President Biden’s warning. The risk of intentional nuclear use, it assessed, was now higher than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It put the reasons in writing, inside the window, for anyone to check. This was three days after Putin’s Valdai climbdown, and ten days before the withdrawal ended the danger.

NSD’s open-source analysis aligned with warnings emerging from the very top of America’s nuclear chain of command, inside the window, in plain language. On 2 November 2022 — the same day the Times story broke — Adm. Charles Richard, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command and the officer responsible for the nation’s nuclear forces, told the Naval Submarine League symposium: [20]

“This Ukraine crisis that we’re in right now, this is just the warmup. The big one is coming. And it isn’t going to be very long before we’re going to get tested in ways that we haven’t been tested in a long time.”

He continued: the current situation “is vividly illuminating what nuclear coercion looks like — and how you do, or how you don’t, stand up to that.” NSD first met Admiral Richard in 2014 when he was a two-star. He stood out among his peers for his penetrating intellect and carefully calibrated imagination. The fact he went this far in a public setting is stunning and is understood by NSD for what it is - the public equivalent of the 3AM call to the White House Situation Room.

Richard was not narrating Kremlin deliberations. He was a commander weeks from handing over his post, with no career left to protect, spending his last public moments on a warning — not that the taboo would hold, but that there was a serious chance it would not. It was the first such warning from an officer of that seniority since the Able Archer crisis of 1983.

(U) SECTION VII — THE THRESHOLD

So what, exactly, is the threshold? The fall of 2022 goes a long way toward answering that question — but not in the direction the “cornered and still said no” reading suggests. His back was against the wall. Kharkiv was a rout; Kherson was falling; annexed land was being retaken; his own mobilization was destabilizing the home front. He was cornered. And the deliberations were real — the intelligence was solid enough to put the White House on a months-long war footing. Being cornered was necessary. The evidence suggests it came close to being sufficient.

What stopped him was not the inadequacy of the pressure. It was the construction of an exit. As the preceding account makes plain — the war-gaming, the withheld systems, the Ukrainian caution that gave the army a road home, the cover story of military necessity — Washington had spent the autumn doing something more than threatening consequences. It had been building a way out. The logic that has guided every serious nuclear crisis manager from Kennedy onward is the same: you cannot apply maximum pressure to a nuclear adversary without simultaneously providing a viable exit. Pressure without exit is suicide by one remove. The door is what stopped Putin at the threshold. Remove the door and the answer changes.

(U) SECTION VIII — A SECOND PRECIPICE

This matters urgently, because Putin is approaching a second precipice — and this time there may be no door. The threat he faces now is not the encirclement of his army but the survival of his regime. Russia’s National Wealth Fund, the sovereign reserve that has financed the war, is being liquidated at a rate that will exhaust its liquid assets within months. The fund’s gold holdings have fallen from 405 tonnes before the invasion to 173 tonnes; in November 2025 alone, Moscow shipped $961 million in physical gold bars to China to settle accounts. [21] Oil and gas revenues — representing up to half of state income — were down more than a quarter year-on-year. This got a brief reprieve from the American miscalculation in Iran that sent oil prices higher but that is still not enough to reverse the trendline for Putin. The interest rate required to prevent currency collapse stands at 16 percent. Import costs for strategic goods have surged 122 percent. Analysts project the remaining liquid reserves will be exhausted within twelve months at current burn rates.

Inside Russia, the political atmosphere is shifting in ways that the financial data alone does not capture. A May 2026 analysis by a former senior Russian official [22] describes a language shift among the Kremlin’s extended circle: senior officials, regional governors, and businessmen have stopped speaking of the war in the first-person plural. It was “our” project. It has become “his.” Not our war. Not our agenda. But the author identifies something more consequential than a change of pronoun. The regime, the analysis notes, still has a monopoly on violence — but has lost its monopoly on shaping the future. Every previous version of the system came with a project: “sovereign democracy,” “energy superpower,” a national vocation. Something to sell, something to believe. That is gone. In its place, Putin’s decisions have begun to be experienced by those around him “as something that will unfold independently of him — and possibly already without him.” For the first time since the invasion began, Russia’s elite is starting to imagine a future that does not include Putin — not from opposition but from self-preservation. In the past three years, the country has undergone its largest redistribution of property since the privatizations of the 1990s, with business assets confiscated and handed to loyalists and cronies. The author’s point is stark: deep loyalty and silence are no guarantee of safety, because confiscation follows its own logic. The apparatus that might, in another scenario, refuse a final order has watched its own property change hands. The system has reached what chess players call Zugzwang: every move Putin makes to preserve his position accelerates the decay he is trying to prevent. He cannot win outright. He cannot afford to lose. And unlike Kherson, there is no army to withdraw and no river to withdraw across. The pressure building now has no military off-ramp. “He can only,” the author concludes, “make the regime bloodier and more dangerous.”

As the voice from inside the Kremlin makes clear, the real threshold is narrower, and NSD first put a name to it inside the window itself. On 30 October 2022, NSD drew the parallel with Hitler’s Nero Decree. In March 1945, Hitler gave the order to destroy what remained of Germany — to deny the Allies anything of value, and to punish the German people for “failing him”. In his telling, they were to blame for the collapse of the thousand-year Reich in just twelve years. The only remaining brake on Hitler’s plan was his inner circle. That 2022 insight, sharpened into a condition, is the Nero-decree threshold: the point at which a regime concludes that its own survival is already forfeit — that it loses no matter what it does. That conclusion is what empties the cost side of the calculation. Deterrence works by holding at risk something the other side values; if the leadership believes everything it values is already gone, there is nothing left to threaten. The very things that produced Russia’s “no” in 2022 — China, India, the avoidance of war with NATO, the survival of the regime itself — only count as costs while the regime still believes it has them to lose.

But the threshold has two gates to take full effect. Hitler’s Nero Decree was issued. But it did not pass the second gate. It was ignored. Albert Speer and key military leaders worked around it, because the men of the apparatus still had futures to protect even when their leader did not. The apparatus always has a future even when the leader does not. That gap sits at the heart of every end-of-regime scenario, and it is why a truly collective everything-is-lost conclusion is nearly impossible to reach. Gate one is the leader’s conclusion. Gate two is whether the system obeys. The fall of 2022 and the spring of 1945 are mirror images of the same lesson — in 2022 the officers deliberated below the leader; in 1945 the leader decided and the officers refused — and in both cases the idea of the state as a single mind failed exactly where it mattered most. So the signal to watch is not collective despair. It is the leader welding the second gate shut: launch authority handed down in advance to loyalists, weapons custody broken up among true believers, obedience built into the chain so that refusal is no longer possible. Of course the circumstances have to be right for the second gate to resist. When Stalin died, no one dared enter his room due to a standing order not to disturb his sleep. Anyone ignoring Putin even at the end will be shot.

(U) SECTION IX — CALCULATION, NOT A NUCLEAR TABOO

What this essay has established is that nuclear use is prevented not by moral inhibition or an inherent taboo but by a calculation that depends on specific, observable conditions. That makes nuclear crisis management an intelligence problem as much as a diplomatic one — and intelligence needs to know what those conditions look like when they begin to change. One report in the existing record has never received the scrutiny it deserves.

Woodward’s War contains a single-sourced account that Putin actually weakened operational control over Russia’s nuclear weapons in 2022 — not to ensure restraint, but to ease the path to use. [23] The same book contains a direct quote from Biden himself, given privately to his national security adviser as the crisis peaked: [24]

“Putin is not going to let himself be routed out of Ukraine without breaking the seal on tactical nuclear weapons. So, we are stuck.”

NSD’s assessment, drawn from reading his reporting across administrations, is that he has not been found substantively wrong on material facts. More relevant to this specific claim: for his Ukraine reporting he obtained, and read publicly from, the actual transcript of the Austin-Shoigu call — a transcript that Secretary Austin himself subsequently confirmed as accurate. A reporter who operates at that level of documentation and verification does not invent an explosive claim about a foreign leader’s modification of nuclear command and control for the sake of a headline. He has far more to lose from being wrong than he has to gain from being first. The “weakened operational control” account remains uncorroborated and runs against everything publicly known about how tightly Russia holds its launch authority. But “uncorroborated” is not the same as “invented,” and the analytical weight here, given the source, is not low.

This is exactly what intelligence needs to be watching for. The following indicators follow from this analysis:

• Deliberations moving upward: The leader in the room is the signal; staff-level gaming is the noise the system correctly read in 2022.

• Changes to custody and command: Watch for restructuring of launch authority — the welding of the second gate.

• Beijing and New Delhi stepping back: A Russia spending those lifelines is a Russia running out of things to lose. But watch equally for Beijing and New Delhi making their own decision to distance themselves from Moscow — something Russia does not control, and which would remove the most powerful external restraint without warning. If China and India pull away of their own accord, the Nero-decree threshold approaches from a direction the Kremlin cannot manage.

• The abandonment of channels: Watch for the channels Russia once valued falling silent — for irregularities around the succession, for the families of the elite quietly in motion, and for nothing-left-to-lose talk from the leader himself — not from the television propagandists, who have nothing to lose nightly.

• The silence of the physical world: Pay attention to the silence, because in 2022 the silence was the strongest evidence there was: no warhead left central storage, nothing was mounted on a missile, no alert level changed. The physical world stayed quiet all autumn.

A final caveat on this watch list, because it matters: every indicator above depends on intelligence of sufficient quality, coverage, and timeliness to be believed and acted on. The 2022 alarm was successful because penetration of Russian deliberations was deep, the collection was timely, and the decision chain that received it trusted itself at every link. In 2026, none of those three conditions can be assumed. The OODA loop — the cycle of observation, orientation, decision, and action — must close faster than events develop. History suggests it often does not. The causal chain from warning to action is long, and every link in it is fragile.

(U) SECTION X — THE WARNING SYSTEM IN 2026

The day the metal moves, everything changes. The question is whether anyone would see it move. Because everything that produced the “no” of 2022 has been eroding since.

Information channels are dying. New START — the last treaty limiting U.S. and Russian strategic weapons — expired on 5 February 2026 with nothing to replace it, its inspections already three years dead, and the quiet lines that carried Austin’s and Burns’s warnings are thinner than at any point since the early Cold War. The threats themselves have gone cheap: Russia’s through four years of crying wolf. Russia formally lowered the bar in its written nuclear doctrine in November 2024.

The most dangerous change of all has gone almost entirely unremarked.

Russia’s missile arsenal is largely dual-use — the same Iskanders, Kalibrs, and Kinzhals are built to carry either a conventional warhead or a nuclear one — and Russia has now fired them at Ukraine thousands of times, every one conventional. Every launch has trained Western sensors, and the people watching them, to expect a conventional explosion at the end of a strategic-looking flight. Nothing about the launch announces the warhead; you cannot tell from the launch plume or the arc what is riding on top. Which means the first nuclear launch will look identical to the previous ten thousand — right up until it detonates.

The Cold War never faced this, because the firebreak then was that these weapons never flew at all: the launch itself was the warning. That warning no longer exists. Fading interest in, and declining knowledge of, the nuances of nuclear warfare has allowed the abnormal to become the baseline. The problem has been compounded by four years of what might fairly be called nuclear whining from Moscow — 135 threats so empty they now register as atmospheric noise rather than signal. The combination is the dangerous one: dual-use missiles normalized through thousands of conventional launches, and nuclear signaling normalized through constant bluster. In that environment, the genuine first shot and the ten-thousandth routine launch are indistinguishable until the flash.

Moscow itself has been mapping this shift. In November 2024 it telephoned Washington before the first Oreshnik strike on Dnipro, precisely so a conventional hit would not be mistaken for a nuclear one — the instinct of a state still trying to manage the ambiguity it had created. By January 2026, no such call preceded the second Oreshnik strike on Lviv. The mission made no discernible military sense. Its most plausible purpose was to observe how NATO’s sensors and decision-makers responded when the phone did not ring.

The first-mover advantage NSD described in April 2022 was about what happens after a detonation: the other side inherits the impossible choice. The side that wants to unleash unconventional nuclear warfare does not move a weapon with an escort of signature vehicles and security convoys. The handling rules are strict, but rules are waived by exactly the authority that orders the strike: one weapon, off the books, a small trusted team, an ordinary truck, a missile fired like the previous ten thousand. Hidden in plain sight.

Do not assume the circumstances, intelligence feeds, and actors who saved the world from catastrophe in 2022 are still in place. The decisive warning that autumn did not come from watching Russian weapons. It came from hearing Russian conversations, and that kind of access is the rarest and most perishable thing in intelligence. The recent record reads like a resource being used up. The CIA’s premier source inside the Kremlin — a man in the office of Putin’s own foreign-policy adviser — had to be pulled out of Russia in 2017 and was publicly exposed in 2019. Access was somehow rebuilt by 2022. Then it, too, was spent: the November leak, the books, a director’s public confirmations, while Russian counterintelligence spent the years since hunting the breach. Built, spent, exposed; rebuilt, spent, exposed — twice in a decade, and each exposure makes the next penetration harder. The “exquisite” sources of 2022 should be presumed diluted, undermined or possibly evaporated in 2026. A warning is only as good as the speed at which it is believed. In 2022, intelligence moved from collection to presidential action in days, through a chain that trusted itself at every link. No sober observer of today’s Washington — the recent failure to anticipate Iranian missile stocks and reach being only the latest example — would bet on that chain running at 2022 speed, against a warning window that the dual-use problem has compressed toward zero.

What survives intact? Two things: the battlefield itself, and Beijing. The biggest things Russia still cannot afford to lose are its lifelines to China and India — which yields a conclusion almost no one in Washington will say out loud. If anyone still deters Russian nuclear use, it is no longer the United States. It is China. The day Russia has less to lose in Beijing is the day the brakes get weaker.

Put it all together and the conclusion is increasing risk. The treaties are dead, the threats are cheap, the launches all look alike, and the spies are gone. Every source of warning is failing except one: the situation itself — the shape of the battle, what the regime still has to lose, who holds the keys and whether the leader is welding the gates. When the sensors are comfortable and the sources are spent, the only warning left is the one sitting in the open.

(U) KNOWN UNKNOWNS

(U) ANALYTICAL JUDGMENT

Putin’s back was against the wall in 2022. The forces that brought him there — a failing military campaign, a regime under economic siege, and a personal survival calculus growing starker by the month — did not disappear with the Kherson withdrawal. They have been building since. The next crisis will not necessarily look like Kherson: armies crossing rivers, a single geographic off-ramp, a withdrawal to be announced on state television. It may look like a regime calculating, in private, that it has nothing left to lose — and finding, for the first time, that no door has been built.

The lesson of the fall of 2022 is the one the world keeps refusing to learn. The bomb stayed in the silo because the math said so. And math can change.

The National Security Desk offers these posts freely, but your support is necessary and appreciated. Please subscribe, paid if you’re able, or leave a tip.

Subscribe now

Thank you

Leave a tip!

Share

Leave a comment

(U) REFERENCES

[1] Bob Woodward, War (2024). Woodward read the Austin-Shoigu transcript verbatim on NPR, October 15, 2024, and confirmed it was “a literal transcript.” Secretary Austin subsequently confirmed the account as accurate. See also Newsweek, October 8, 2024.

[2] Bob Woodward, War (Simon & Schuster, October 2024). The 50% probability estimate, and its progression from approximately 5% then 10% as the Kharkiv offensive developed, is reported in Woodward’s book and summarized in CNN, “New Woodward book reveals Biden’s alarm over potential Russian nuclear strike,” October 8, 2024. Woodward confirmed the account to CBS News, October 14, 2024.

[3] William Burns, Director of Central Intelligence, interview, CNBC, 7 September 2024.

[4] Jim Sciutto, The Return of Great Powers: Russia, China, and the Next World War (Dutton, 2024).

[5] Ulrich Kühn, “The Fall Crisis of 2022: Why Did Russia Not Use Nuclear Arms?” Defense & Security Analysis 41, no. 2 (2025): 280–300. DOI: 10.1080/14751798.2024.2442794.

[6] George Perkovich and Pranay Vaddi, “How to Assess Nuclear ‘Threats’ in the Twenty-First Century,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January 2026.

[7] Vladimir Putin, address to the Russian Federation, September 21, 2022. Transcript: kremlin.ru.

[8] Ramzan Kadyrov, Telegram channel, October 1, 2022.

[9] President Biden, remarks at a Democratic fundraiser, New York, October 6, 2022. Reported by The New York Times, Reuters, and AP.

[10] Prime Minister Narendra Modi, remarks to President Putin, SCO summit, Samarkand, September 16, 2022.

[11] G20 Bali Leaders’ Declaration, paragraph 10, November 15–16, 2022.

[12] Vladimir Putin, Valdai Discussion Club plenary session, October 27, 2022. Transcript: kremlin.ru.

[13] “Russian Nuclear Threats 1999–2025,” Unconventional Nuclear Warfare, National Security Desk, nukes.substack.com (2025).

[14] Voice of America analysis of Russian nuclear statements, February 2022–December 2024; cited in NSD, “Russian Nuclear Threats 1999–2025.”

[15] Mark Kramer, “We Might Give Them a Few: Did the US Offer to Drop Atom Bombs at Dien Bien Phu?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 26, 2016. NSC Planning Board minutes, April 29–30, 1954 (declassified). See also John Prados, Operation Vulture (iBooks, 2002).

[16] Sciutto, The Return of Great Powers (2024).

[17] “MAD MAN!” Unconventional Nuclear Warfare, National Security Desk, March 30, 2022. Available at nukes.substack.com. Inaugural publication of the Unconventional Nuclear Warfare channel; the channel was created March 28, 2022.

[18] “Tactical Nuke on Kyiv: Putin Has the Advantage,” Unconventional Nuclear Warfare, National Security Desk, April 20, 2022. Available at nukes.substack.com.

[19] Gen. Barry McCaffrey (USA, ret.), LinkedIn, April 2022, in response to NSD’s “Tactical Nuke on Kyiv.”

[20] C. Todd Lopez, “STRATCOM Commander Says US Should Look to 1950s to Regain Competitive Edge,” DOD News, November 3, 2022. Available at defense.gov.

[21] National Wealth Fund figures from Russian Ministry of Finance disclosures and UK Government statement to the OSCE (2025). $961 million gold export: multiple financial reporting services, November 2025. See also NSD, “Russia Is Near Collapse — Trump Is Putin’s Lifeline,” Civil War II, National Security Desk, February 16, 2026.

[22] “Vladimir Putin is losing his grip on Russia,” The Economist, May 9, 2026.

[23] Woodward, War (2024); cited in New Voice of Ukraine, “Biden’s team feared Russian nuclear strike at Kherson, Bob Woodward’s book reveals,” January 19, 2025.

[24] Bob Woodward, War (2024). Biden’s direct quote to Sullivan, as read by Woodward on CBS News, October 14, 2024.

The National Security Desk offers these posts freely, but your support is necessary and appreciated. Please subscribe, paid if you’re able, or leave a tip.

Subscribe now

Thank you

Leave a tip!

Share

Leave a comment

NSD Podcasts

THREATENING GENOCIDE IS A CRIME

WASHINGTON DC 7APL2026…

Listen now

2 months ago · The National Security Desk

(U) SECTION I — NSD NET ASSESSMENT

On the morning of April 7, 2026, the President of the United States threatened another civilization with genocide.

That alone is a crime. Whether it happens or not. Whether he means it or not. The threat of genocide is an inchoate offense under international law, complete at the moment of utterance. No weapon needs to fall. No order needs to be given. The crime is committed. The United States is in a national crisis — not approaching one, not at risk of one — in one, right now, and every legal mechanism the Constitution provides must be engaged immediately to remove this president from office.

For too long, Trump and his illegality have been normalized. For too long, each outrage has been absorbed, explained away, rationalized as negotiating tactics or presidential style or “just Trump being Trump.” The American people have been conditioned — systematically, over years — to live in a world of perpetual threat and punishment, where the unthinkable becomes the routine and the routine becomes invisible. They are not someone else’s problem. We are the boiling frogs. The temperature has been rising since January 6, 2021 — since an attempted coup on the United States Capitol, a coup, in America, which the country has somehow managed to normalize and move past — through the pardons of the insurrectionists who carried it out, through the purges of institutional guardrails, through the firing of generals who delivered unwelcome counsel, through the systematic dismantlement of every mechanism designed to prevent this exact moment — and the water is now at the point where the frog either jumps or dies. “A whole civilization will die tonight” is not the first transgression. It is the culmination of a pattern of normalization so complete that a sitting president can threaten genocide on a social media platform and the system’s first instinct is to ask whether he really means it.

He said it. That is the fact. The rest is noise.

Twelve hours before his own deadline to destroy Iran’s power grid and bridges, the President posted on Truth Social: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.” [1]

The threat itself is already a crime. Under the ICJ’s 1996 Advisory Opinion, a public threat to use weapons in a manner that would violate international humanitarian law is itself unlawful — the threat inherits the illegality of the intended act. Under Article III of the Genocide Convention and Article 25(3)(e) of the Rome Statute, direct and public incitement to genocide is an inchoate crime, complete at the moment of utterance regardless of whether the act is carried out. A sitting president has, on a public platform, stated that “a whole civilization will die tonight.” The documented escalation of 39 days — universities bombed, petrochemical plants destroyed, power grids threatened, Iranians called “animals,” Allah invoked as mockery on Easter Sunday — constitutes the circumstantial evidentiary chain for specific genocidal intent. The crime, if dolus specialis is established, is already committed. No weapon needs to fall for the law to have been broken.

The NSD assesses that the conventional ceiling has been reached, that the structural conditions for tactical nuclear employment are present and strengthening, that no mutual assured destruction constrains it, that the institutional mechanisms designed to prevent it have been systematically degraded, and that the only remaining constraint is the willingness of senior military officers to refuse or resign — and that under the Colangelo/Kehler legal framework, they face war crimes liability if they do not.

He must be removed from the authority to make this decision. Immediately. By every legal means the Constitution provides. This assessment is on the record.

(U) SECTION II — THE NORMALCY BIAS IS THE DANGER

The pattern of exaggeration IS the escalation ladder. Each statement that gets normalized lowers the threshold for the next one. Each time the system absorbs an outrage, the outrage required to trigger a response increases. “Fire and fury” in 2017. “Send Iran back to the Stone Ages” in 2026. “Obliterating that country.” “They’re animals.” And now: “A whole civilization will die tonight.” The escalation is in the language. The discount is in the audience.

The NSD has documented 39 days of unidirectional escalation. Every deadline extended. Every target set expanded. Every failure met not with recalibration but with more destruction. The risk calculus is asymmetric. If the threat is bluster and we take it seriously, the cost is political disruption. If the threat is real and we dismiss it as bluster, the cost is civilizational. The expected cost of the false positive is manageable. The expected cost of the false negative is irreversible.

If this is not a national emergency, the NSD does not know what would be.

(U) SECTION III — THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: THE THREAT ITSELF IS THE CRIME

The ICJ Standard

The International Court of Justice’s 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons established the operative principle: “If an envisaged use of weapons would not meet the requirements of humanitarian law, a threat to engage in such use would also be contrary to that law.” The threat is not a separate category. It inherits the legality status of the intended act. A public threat to destroy a civilization of 90 million people — whose execution cannot discriminate between civilian and military targets — is unlawful as a threat under the ICJ’s own framework, regardless of whether a weapon is ever employed. [43]

ICJ President Bedjaoui stated that the court’s inability to rule definitively on extreme self-defense circumstances “can in no manner be interpreted to mean that it is leaving the door ajar to recognition of the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.” The United States is not acting in extreme self-defense of its own survival. The factual predicate for the only possible exception does not apply. The U.S. initiated this war. [44]

The Genocide Convention and Rome Statute

Under Article III of the Genocide Convention and Article 25(3)(e) of the Rome Statute, direct and public incitement to genocide is an inchoate crime — the genocide never has to occur for the crime to be complete. The ICTR established in the Rwanda Media Case (Nahimana et al.) that the crime requires two elements: (a) a direct and public act of incitement — a public platform, directed at a mass audience, calling for the destruction of a group; and (b) dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group in whole or in part. [45]

Element (a) is met. A sitting president posted on a public platform, to an audience of millions, that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” This follows “send Iran back to the Stone Ages,” “obliterating that country,” “they’ll have no bridges, they’ll have no power plants, they’ll have no anything,” and “they’re animals” — each directed at the Iranian nation as a group. [46][47]

Element (b) — dolus specialis — is the contested question. Can specific genocidal intent be inferred from a pattern of escalating annihilationist rhetoric directed at a named national group, or is this compellence rhetoric? The NSD’s analytical contribution to this legal question is the documented behavioral record: 39 days of escalation in which every expansion of force has been disconnected from political objectives and directed at the population whose leadership defies the president. The escalation pattern is the circumstantial evidence for intent.

Cambridge University’s Nuclear Weapons Law volume confirms: “There can be no doubt that the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes do not suddenly cease to have relevance simply because nuclear weapons are involved.” [48]

The Enforcement Gap

The ICC can legally issue an arrest warrant for a sitting U.S. president. The U.S. never ratified the Rome Statute, holds a Security Council veto, and Executive Order 14203 codifies sanctions against ICC officials. The warrant would go unenforced. But it would exist, and it would follow the individual. [49]

Domestic prosecution is structurally impossible. The only remaining constraint is institutional.

(U) SECTION IV — THE LEGITIMACY COLLAPSE: ON WAR AND WARFARE APPLIED

NSD’s definitional framework (”On War and Warfare,” MILab, 1 April 2026) establishes that war is sustained by political will, and that will is generated by three forms of legitimacy operating together. The president’s statement this morning — “a whole civilization will die tonight” — has, by itself, squandered all three simultaneously.

The legitimacy of the government — whether the people trust the institution prosecuting the war to act in their name. The President is threatening genocide in the name of America. In the name of every American citizen. He is desecrating the national honor of the United States and destroying its standing in the world for a generation — and that assessment applies to the conventional campaign alone, before a single nuclear weapon enters the calculus. No American was consulted. No American consented. No constitutional process authorized the annihilation of a civilization as American policy. The government has lost the legitimacy to act in the people’s name because it is acting in ways the people did not authorize and the Constitution does not permit. A government that threatens genocide does not represent its people. It implicates them.

The legitimacy of the cause — whether the people believe the objective is worth the sacrifice demanded. The cause is now incoherent beyond repair. This war was launched, ostensibly, to liberate the Iranian people from theocratic oppression. Thirty-nine days later, the president is threatening to annihilate the people he claimed to be liberating. Over 30 universities bombed. A synagogue destroyed during Passover. 1,616 confirmed civilian dead including 236 children. 3.2 million displaced. And now: the explicit promise that their civilization will die tonight. Liberation was the rhetoric. Annihilation is the trajectory. The two cannot coexist. Once the cause is revealed as fraudulent — once “liberation” becomes “obliteration” — will does not merely erode. It collapses retroactively, poisoning not just this war but the nation’s willingness to support future action. The WMD deception in Iraq destroyed American credibility for a generation. A threat of genocide will destroy it permanently.

The legitimacy of the war’s conduct — whether the war is being fought in a manner consistent with the values the people hold and the laws they recognize. A public threat to annihilate a civilization of 90 million people is the ultimate violation of conduct legitimacy. It is not a breach of the laws of armed conflict. It is the repudiation of them. It is not a war crime committed in the fog of battle. It is a war crime announced on social media twelve hours before the deadline. There is no conduct legitimacy remaining. It was destroyed by the statement.

When all three forms of legitimacy are compromised — when the government is distrusted, the cause is dishonest, and the conduct is lawless — will collapses, and no amount of kinetic capability can substitute for it. The NSD’s framework is explicit: this is the terminal condition.

Credibility as currency — debased to zero. The “On War and Warfare” framework establishes that credibility is the currency all warfares spend, and that threats, like currency, are debased by overissue. Trump has issued and extended the same deadline four times in 17 days. Each extension devalued the threat. But the “civilization will die tonight” statement does not merely debase the currency further — it exits the currency system entirely. This is no longer coercive signaling within a framework of credibility. This is annihilationist rhetoric that has destroyed American credibility as a rational strategic actor. If there comes a moment when a genuine escalatory signal must be sent — over nuclear material dispersal, for instance — the channel is already burned. The boy who cried wolf is now the president who cried genocide.

Every Powell Gate has failed. NSD’s expanded Powell Doctrine identifies eleven gates that must be passed before a state commits to war. The “civilization will die tonight” statement fails them all — but three are definitional:

Gate 2 — Clear objective: The political objective must be stated, fixed, and achievable. It must remain stable across a week of press conferences. No stated political objective of Operation Epic Fury has survived 48 hours. The objective this morning is the annihilation of a civilization. That is not a political objective. It is a confession that none exists.

Gate 5 — Non-violent means exhausted: Iran offered to blend down its HEU during pre-war negotiations. The administration terminated the talks by attacking. A diplomatic channel existed. It was destroyed by kinetic action. Non-violent means were not exhausted. They were executed.

Gate 7 — Consequences considered: A president who threatens to annihilate a civilization as a deadline enforcement mechanism has not considered consequences. He has demonstrated incapacity to process them.

Sovericide. NSD has defined sovericide as the deliberate, internally driven destruction of a sovereign state by its own governing executive — the condition in which the central authority abandons constitutional constraints, repurposes state power against the polity it governs, and initiates actions that erode the institutional, legal, and geopolitical foundations of the state. A government that threatens genocide in the name of its people — against their will, without their consent, in violation of their Constitution and their treaty obligations — is committing sovericide in real time. The foreign policy of a sovericial government is not strategy. It is the external projection of internal collapse.

Military Innovation Lab

On War and Warfare

WASHINGTON DC 1APL2026…

Read more

3 months ago · 4 likes · 1 comment · The National Security Desk

(U) SECTION V — THE ANNIHILATIONIST RHETORIC: THE DOCUMENTED RECORD

The escalation of presidential rhetoric is documented and timestamped.

On March 21, 2026, Trump set his first deadline to destroy Iranian power plants and bridges. He has extended that deadline four times across 17 days — each extension accompanied by expanded threat language. [22]

On Easter Sunday, April 6, Trump posted on Truth Social: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.” [8]

On the morning of April 7, twelve hours before his own deadline, Trump posted: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.” In the same post, he claimed “Complete and Total Regime Change” and predicted that “47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end.” [1]

No American president in the nuclear age has publicly threatened to erase a civilization as a coercive instrument tied to a same-day deadline. Truman did not threaten Japan with civilizational extinction before Hiroshima; the weapon’s existence was not publicly known. Eisenhower’s nuclear threats against China were conveyed through diplomatic channels, not public platforms. Kennedy’s Cuban Missile Crisis rhetoric was calibrated deterrence language directed at a nuclear-armed adversary. Nixon’s “madman theory” was a posture communicated through intermediaries, never publicly articulated against a specific nation on a timestamped platform.

The “civilization will die tonight” statement is without precedent. Whether it refers to conventional infrastructure destruction or something beyond it is analytically immaterial at this stage. The signal has been sent to every audience simultaneously: Tehran, allies, adversaries, and every proliferation-minded state on earth. The United States will threaten civilizational annihilation as a Tuesday afternoon deadline enforcement mechanism.

(U)SECTION VI— RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION

The president has publicly threatened genocide. The legal enforcement mechanisms do not function. Congress will not act — both War Powers Resolutions failed along partisan lines (Senate 47-53, House 212-219). The Cabinet will not invoke the 25th Amendment — Vance and this cabinet were selected precisely because they will not. The ICC can issue a warrant that will go unenforced. The domestic legal system provides absolute immunity for official acts.

The honest assessment is that no single mechanism stops this if the president orders it and STRATCOM executes it. The system was designed for speed, not restraint. What can be done is to create the political, legal, and institutional conditions in which the order either is not given — or, if given, is refused by the officer who has the legal basis to do so.

1. Mass Military Resignation — The Most Powerful Signal Available

A mass resignation of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the service chiefs, and every combatant commander worldwide would not physically stop a nuclear order — it runs through STRATCOM, not the COCOMs. What it would accomplish is more consequential than the chain of command alone.

It would create the most severe civil-military rupture in American history. It would constitute a public declaration by the most credible possible witnesses — the people executing the war — that the commander-in-chief cannot be trusted with the authority he holds. It would force the 25th Amendment conversation into the open by compelling cabinet members to confront the situation publicly. It would freeze conventional operations across every theater, creating a practical crisis that demands resolution. And it would create the political and institutional cover for the STRATCOM commander to invoke the Colangelo/Kehler framework — transforming an isolated act of individual refusal into an institutional position backed by the senior military leadership of the United States.

The officers of the United States Armed Forces swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an oath to the president. Mass resignation is not insubordination. It is the exercise of the only remaining constitutional mechanism available to officers who have been told, on the public record, that they may be ordered to execute genocide.

If the senior military leadership of the United States is unwilling to resign en masse when the commander-in-chief publicly threatens nuclear genocide against a civilization of 90 million people — a civilization that possesses no nuclear weapons and cannot retaliate in kind — then the question must be asked: what are they willing to stand up for?

The Colangelo framework makes the legal calculus explicit: the risk is not in resigning. The risk is in staying. General Hyten’s formulation is the operative legal standard — “If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail for the rest of your life.” Officers who remain in the chain of command when a nuclear genocide order is issued and executed are not protected by obedience. They are exposed by it. Under international humanitarian law, under the Genocide Convention, under the UCMJ’s prohibition on manifestly illegal orders, compliance with an order to annihilate a civilian population is a war crime — and “I was following orders” has not been a defense since Nuremberg. Resignation is not the courageous option. It is the legally necessary one. The officers who stay and comply face prosecution. The officers who resign and refuse do not.

2. STRATCOM Commander Refusal — The Actual Brake

The nuclear chain of command runs President → Secretary of Defense → STRATCOM Commander. It does not run through the combatant commanders or the Joint Chiefs. The STRATCOM Commander — currently Navy Admiral Richard Correll — is the officer whose compliance or refusal determines whether a nuclear weapon is employed.

The legal framework for refusal is stronger than commonly understood. SMU Law Professor Anthony Colangelo’s 2018 Harvard National Security Journal analysis argues there is an affirmative legal duty to disobey illegal nuclear strike orders, with criminal and civil liability for compliance. Former STRATCOM Commander General Robert Kehler testified to Congress that the military can refuse what it views as an illegal order, including a nuclear strike order. Former STRATCOM Commander General John Hyten stated in 2017: “If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail for the rest of your life.” [59]

The Lawfare analysis concludes that under UCMJ Articles 90 and 92, civilian authorities — the president and Secretary of Defense — may not be in the chain of command for purposes of court martial liability, meaning a STRATCOM commander who refuses a nuclear order may face no prosecutable UCMJ violation. The USNI Proceedings analysis addresses the nuclear case directly: if conventional weapons can achieve the same military objective as nuclear weapons near civilians, and nuclear weapons are ordered instead, “that order may be manifestly illegal.” [60][61]

The Colangelo/Kehler framework is the actual brake that exists. Everything else is about creating the conditions that make that refusal survivable, credible, and irreversible.

3. Allied Public Declaration and Basing Denial — Immediate Action Available Today

Every nation hosting B61-12 tactical nuclear weapons under NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement — Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey — should make a public declaration today that they will not permit nuclear weapons employment from their territory against Iran. This is legally within the sovereign authority of each host nation. It requires no legislation, no treaty negotiation, no institutional process. It requires a statement. Spain has already refused conventional basing rights and held despite Trump threatening to cut relations. The B61-12 hosting nations have a legal obligation and a moral duty to state their position publicly. Whether or not basing denial is operationally occurring, the declaration itself changes the political environment. Every allied government that remains silent is complicit in the permissive conditions for nuclear use. [62]

4. Allied Legal Declarations

Under the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (93 signatories, 70 ratifications), Article 1(d) explicitly prohibits threatening to use nuclear weapons. France — a nuclear-armed Security Council member — has stated the strikes cannot be approved “outside of international law.” A formal French legal declaration that threatened nuclear use constitutes a violation of international law is qualitatively different from an open letter. Over 100 international law experts have already signed an open letter warning U.S. military strikes could amount to war crimes. Government adoption of that legal position changes the political environment. [63][64]

5. Former Officials Joint Statement

Former Secretary of Defense Mattis, former CJCS Milley, and former NSA McMaster have all been publicly critical. A joint statement specifically invoking the illegality of nuclear employment against civilian populations — carrying their institutional authority — is a different order of public pressure than individual commentary.

6. Congressional Record-Creation

The Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act (S. 192, Markey/Merkley/Warren) and the Nuclear First-Strike Security Act (H.R. 3564, Peters) would prohibit federal funds for nuclear first strike without a Congressional declaration of war. Neither will pass. Both are worth forcing onto the floor regardless — they establish the legislative record that Congress considered the issue and that presidential authority was contested. Georgetown Law’s 2019 analysis concludes Congress can constitutionally enact such legislation. [65]

7. Federal Injunction

A coalition of state attorneys general could seek emergency injunction on grounds that a nuclear first strike on a civilian population would constitute an illegal order under the UCMJ. Courts have historically declined to adjudicate war powers as political questions. But Colangelo’s framework argues that whether an order violates IHL is a legal question, not a political one. Low probability of success in time. High value as legal record. A court filing, even if dismissed, forces the administration to articulate a legal theory for nuclear first use. [66]

The Consolidated Assessment

No single mechanism stops this if the president orders it and STRATCOM executes it. The combination — mass resignation creating political conditions, the Colangelo/Kehler legal framework providing the basis for refusal, allied declarations creating international pressure, Congressional legislation creating the legal record — is designed to make the order either ungivable or unexecutable.

The actual brake is one officer: the STRATCOM commander, invoking the legal duty to disobey a manifestly illegal order to strike a civilian population with nuclear weapons when conventional alternatives exist. Everything else is about making that refusal survivable. The mass resignation makes it institutional rather than individual. The allied declarations make it internationally supported. The legal framework makes it defensible. The Congressional record makes it constitutional.

That is the only mechanism that exists. The NSD’s duty is to name it.

Monitoring Requirements

Monitor immediately: Any change in B-2 operational posture or sortie profiles. Any presidential rhetoric escalating toward Tehran specifically. Any STRATCOM personnel changes or nuclear authentication procedure modifications.

Monitor within 72 hours: The outcome of tonight’s deadline. The administration’s response to the failure of infrastructure strikes to reopen the Strait. Any senior military resignations or public statements distancing from presidential rhetoric.

Monitor the chain of command: The STRATCOM commander’s public and private posture. Any reporting of internal dissent. Any further senior officer firings. Any personnel changes at Whiteman AFB (509th Bomb Wing, B-2 operations).

(U) KNOWN UNKNOWNS

Political and Legal Unknowns

5. Whether nuclear employment options have been briefed to the president during Epic Fury. No reporting since February 28 has addressed this. The silence is itself operationally significant.

6. Whether institutional constraints in the chain of command remain functional. Whether any officer between the president and the weapon would refuse or delay an order for nuclear employment is unknown and unknowable until tested.

7. Whether the STRATCOM commander has been given any guidance, formal or informal, on nuclear employment parameters for Iran. Admiral Correll’s disposition is the single most operationally significant unknown in this assessment. No open-source reporting addresses it.

8. Whether any allied government has privately communicated to Washington that nuclear use would trigger alliance rupture, basing denial, or diplomatic recognition withdrawal. If such communications have occurred, they constitute the most important diplomatic constraint not visible in the public record.

9. Whether the president’s targeting calculus follows institutional-strategic logic or personal-punitive logic. Whether “a whole civilization will die tonight” refers to Pickaxe Mountain, to the power grid, or to Tehran determines the difference between a catastrophe and a civilizational crime.

10. Whether any domestic legal challenge has been prepared or filed. State attorneys general, constitutional law scholars, or military JAG officers may have prepared injunction filings or legal opinions that are not yet public.

11. Whether the president’s mental state has been formally assessed by anyone in his immediate circle. The 25th Amendment requires the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to determine inability. Whether any such assessment has been discussed, formally or informally, is unknown.

Operational Unknowns

1. MOP remaining inventory. The number of GBU-57s expended in Midnight Hammer (14) is confirmed. The number expended during Epic Fury is not. The pre-war total inventory is classified.

2. Whether Iran has moved enriched uranium to Pickaxe Mountain. Satellite imagery shows vehicular activity at tunnel entrances. The IAEA has had no access since June 2025.

3. The actual penetration capability of existing MOP variants against Pickaxe Mountain’s specific geology. The MOP was developed for Fordow, which is shallower and under softer rock.

4. Who holds effective command authority in Iran. If Mojtaba Khamenei is incapacitated, the chain of command runs to the IRGC. Whether any entity possesses both the authority and willingness to deliver what Trump demands by tonight is unknown.

(U) PRE-MORTEM

The most likely way this assessment is wrong: the institutional constraints hold, the deadline extends, and the rhetoric was performance. The probability assigned to that outcome (55-65%) reflects its base rate plausibility.

The most likely way the world fails to prevent what this assessment warns about is stated at the top of this document: the normalcy bias. Everyone assumes this is just Trump being Trump — right up until it isn’t. The NSD’s duty is to ensure that the assumption is challenged before the event, not examined after it.

(U) ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis 1 (Mainstream) — The rhetoric is coercive bluster; the deadline extends again.

Trump has extended his deadline four times in 17 days. The pattern supports this reading. Vice President Vance stated on April 7 that the U.S. had “largely accomplished its military objectives.” [36] This language provides an off-ramp. The fifth extension would further erode the coercive value of future deadlines, but that erosion has not previously prevented extension.

Probability: LIKELY (55-65%). The base rate of extensions supports this hypothesis. Against it: the “civilization will die tonight” rhetoric is qualitatively different from previous deadline language, and Kharg Island strikes are already underway as of the morning of April 7. [37]

Hypothesis 2 (NSD Primary) — Conventional escalation to infrastructure destruction, creating conditions for further escalation.

Trump strikes power plants and bridges as threatened. The immediate consequence is humanitarian catastrophe for 88 million people. The Strait does not reopen because power plant destruction has no operational connection to Hormuz. The failure of this escalation to produce the desired political outcome — the documented pattern of 39 days — produces pressure for the next escalation. The ground force buildup continues. Each day that the political objective is not achieved and the conventional ceiling becomes more apparent brings the unconventional option closer to the decision space.

Probability: PLAUSIBLE (35-50%) for infrastructure strikes tonight; the cascading escalation logic is a trajectory, not a single-event probability.

Hypothesis 3 (Elite-Disfavored) — Tactical nuclear employment within the current campaign.

This is the hypothesis mainstream analysts are least likely to entertain, because the 81-year taboo against nuclear use has become a structural assumption rather than a variable. The NSD assesses that in the hands of this specific decision-maker, under these specific conditions, the taboo functions as a psychological expectation, not a material constraint. No treaty prohibits it. No retaliatory capability deters it. No institutional mechanism has demonstrated the capacity to prevent it.

Sub-hypothesis 3A — Nuclear strike against deeply buried nuclear infrastructure (Pickaxe Mountain / Isfahan). This is the institutional-rational pathway. It is analytically coherent as a targeting problem and radiologically self-defeating as a solution. The bureaucracy would frame it in terms of conventional limits and war aims. The NSD assesses that while this justification may be constructed, it is more likely to serve as post-hoc rationalization than as the actual decision driver — because the radiological contradiction means it does not achieve its stated purpose.

Sub-hypothesis 3B — Nuclear strike against Tehran. This is the behavioral pathway. It follows the documented pattern of punitive escalation directed at the leadership and population that refuse to submit. Tehran is the locus of regime authority, the symbolic center of Iranian civilization, and the target implicitly described by “a whole civilization will die tonight.” There is no institutional-strategic justification for nuclear use against a city of 9 million people. There does not need to be. The pattern documented across 39 days is escalation disconnected from strategic justification. The most dangerous scenario is the one in which 3B is the impulse and 3A is the explanation — a punitive strike on Tehran laundered through the vocabulary of deeply buried targets and conventional limits.

The indicators that would elevate this hypothesis from assessed trajectory to imminent warning:

- Administration rhetoric framing Iranian nuclear facilities as “impossible to destroy by conventional means” — publicly establishing the institutional justification (3A predicate).- Presidential rhetoric escalating from infrastructure threats to explicit threats against Tehran as a city or against “the regime” in language implying physical annihilation rather than political replacement (3B predicate).- Movement of B-2 stealth bombers to forward positions compatible with nuclear delivery profiles (shorter sortie, different loadout).- Any public or leaked discussion of nuclear employment options, nuclear posture review acceleration, or changes to nuclear command authority procedures.- Further senior military leadership firings that remove officers assessed as likely to resist nuclear authorization.- A failed ground operation at Isfahan or Natanz that produces significant U.S. casualties without recovering the uranium — creating the “conventional means have been exhausted” narrative (3A predicate).- The collapse or further degradation of diplomatic channels to the point where no interlocutor exists — which the Mojtaba Khamenei incapacitation may already have produced (both predicates).

Probability: LOW (10-15%) within the current campaign. But the probability is not static. It rises with each conventional failure, each deadline that passes without the desired capitulation, each day that deeply buried targets remain intact, and each step in the documented escalation pattern. The structural absence of MAD removes the one external constraint that has historically prevented nuclear employment since 1945.

Consequence: CIVILIZATIONAL. The first use of a nuclear weapon in combat since Nagasaki would shatter the 81-year taboo, rewrite the global security architecture overnight, invite nuclear proliferation by every state that draws the lesson that only nuclear weapons deter nuclear weapons, and produce humanitarian, environmental, and radiological consequences that extend decades beyond this conflict. A strike on Tehran would add the dimension of targeting a civilian population of 9 million — an act without precedent in the history of nuclear weapons, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose combined populations at the time of the bombings were approximately 600,000.

(U) ANALYTICAL JUDGMENT

The duty to warn is the duty to be useful left of boom. The president has told us what he intends. The record is public. The legal finding is clear. The institutional question is the only one that remains.

PDF COPY OF THIS REPORT

2026 04 07 1020 Nukes Tactical Nuclear Draft V6

544KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The National Security Desk offers these posts freely, but your support is necessary and appreciated. Please subscribe, paid if you’re able, or leave a tip.

Subscribe now

Thank you

Leave a tip!

Share

Leave a comment

(U) THE SELF-INDUCED DILEMMA

The NSD compels attention to the causal chain that produced this moment, because the policy origin is itself the analytical finding.

In May 2018, the United States withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. [38] At that time, Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile was capped at 300 kilograms of 3.67% enrichment — enough for zero nuclear weapons — under continuous IAEA verification with inspectors on the ground at all facilities.

By early 2025, following the collapse of the JCPOA, Iran had enriched approximately 440 kilograms to 60% — a level from which weapons-grade (90%) material can be produced in days. [14]

In June 2025, Operation Midnight Hammer struck the enrichment facilities. The administration claimed obliteration. The uranium survived. [13]

In the negotiations that preceded Epic Fury, Iran reportedly offered to blend down its HEU to lower enrichment levels. The administration terminated the talks by attacking on February 28, 2026. [34]

Thirty-nine days later, the enriched uranium remains in tunnels too deep for the largest conventional bomb. The administration has assembled ground forces for a commando raid to retrieve it. The Supreme Leader it demands make a deal is unconscious. The president is publicly threatening civilizational extinction on a social media platform with a same-day timestamp.

Every decision in this chain — withdrawal from the JCPOA, failure to sustain verification, initiation of kinetic action when diplomatic channels existed, termination of negotiations by military strike — was a choice. The nuclear dilemma the administration now confronts is not an Iranian creation. It is a self-induced strategic trap, and the weapon at the bottom of the trap is the one that was supposed to make the problem go away.

The uranium that the JCPOA controlled for free now requires either a ground invasion of a country the size of Alaska, or the first use of a nuclear weapon since 1945, to address.

000

(U) BIAS REGISTER

| Bias | Status | Mitigation ||---|---|---|| Mirror imaging | FLAGGED | Two distinct risks. First: projecting rational-actor constraints onto a decision-maker whose pattern is irrational escalation. Second and more dangerous: assuming nuclear employment would follow institutional-strategic targeting logic (deeply buried facilities) when the behavioral pattern points at punitive targeting (Tehran). The rational-actor assumption is itself a form of mirror imaging — projecting the analyst’s targeting logic onto a decision-maker who has demonstrated he does not share it. Mitigated by explicit dual-hypothesis structure. || Confirmation bias | FLAGGED | NSD’s prior Scenario 5 assessment creates anchoring risk. Mitigated by explicit alternative hypotheses, including the mainstream extension hypothesis rated as most probable. || Anchoring | FLAGGED | The June 2025 Guardian report on tactical nuclear assessment anchors the analysis to deeply buried nuclear facilities as the target set. The Tehran behavioral hypothesis was introduced specifically to counteract this anchor. || Worst-case bias | MONITORED | The civilizational consequence of Hypothesis 3 may inflate subjective probability. Mitigated by assigning LOW probability with explicit conditions for escalation. || Authority bias | NOT FIRED | No deference to official claims; administration statements treated as data, not truth. || CYA hedging | NOT FIRED | Assessment delivers a direct judgment. The probability is low. The trajectory is real. Both statements are made without equivocation. || Narrative laundering | MONITORED | Risk that the escalation narrative becomes self-reinforcing. Mitigated by noting the base rate of deadline extensions and the mainstream hypothesis. Additionally: the “institutional justification laundering a behavioral impulse” framework is itself a narrative that requires evidence. The evidence is the documented pattern of 39 days. If the pattern breaks, the narrative breaks. |

(U) ANNEX A — OPERATIONAL AND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

The following sections provide the detailed operational, technical, and structural evidence supporting the key findings and recommendations above. They are annexed rather than foregrounded because the primary issue is legal and political — the president has threatened genocide, that threat is itself a crime, and the institutional response is the immediate question. The operational detail establishes the structural conditions but is secondary to the imperative to act.

The Chain of Command Is Designed to Enable, Not Constrain

The U.S. nuclear command and control system is explicitly designed to execute presidential orders, not to evaluate them. The Secretary of Defense’s role is to verify the order’s authenticity, not to provide a substantive veto. Former Vice President Cheney stated the architecture: the president “doesn’t have to check with anybody, he doesn’t have to call Congress, he doesn’t have to check with the courts.” [50]

Major Harold Hering was discharged from the Air Force in 1975 after asking during launch training at Vandenberg AFB: “How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?” The system’s answer, established by his discharge, is that lower-level officers authenticate orders, not evaluate the sanity of the commander-in-chief. [51]

The pattern of military purges documented in Finding 6 — Brown, George, Hegseth’s civilian advisory roster, the Pantex workforce — has degraded the institutional review layer that historically existed between the president and the weapon. The nuclear delivery options documented in Finding 9 — B61-12 on B-2, W80-1 ALCM on B-52, W76-2 on Trident II — are operational and available tonight. [52][53][54][55]

The Conventional Limits Problem

Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025 represented the most ambitious conventional strike against deeply buried nuclear facilities in history. Seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flew 18 hours from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, and dropped 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators — each weighing 30,000 pounds — on the Fordow and Natanz enrichment facilities, along with Tomahawk cruise missiles against Isfahan. [11][12]

The operation was historic. It was also insufficient.

The administration claimed Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely obliterated.” This was false. The Defense Intelligence Agency assessed that Iran retained control of almost all of its nuclear material. [13] The IAEA confirmed that approximately 440 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium — enough, if further enriched, for up to eleven nuclear weapons — survived the strikes. [14][15] At least 200 kilograms of this material is stored in deep tunnels at Isfahan, where General Caine told Congress the storage area exceeds MOP penetration depth. [3] An unknown additional quantity is believed to be at Pickaxe Mountain near Natanz and possibly at Fordow. [16]

The Pickaxe Mountain facility (Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La) is buried under a mountain standing at 1,608 meters above sea level — more than 650 meters taller than the mountain housing Fordow, which the MOP was purpose-built to attack over 15 years of development. [4][5] The Institute for Science and International Security has documented ongoing construction, hardening of tunnel entrances with concrete slabs and soil overburden, and a multi-level security perimeter. [17] JINSA’s Jonathan Ruhe stated that the site “was intentionally built deeper than many bunker-busting munitions can penetrate.” [18]

The United States struck Fordow with 12 MOPs dropped sequentially on two ventilation shafts. The result: the IAEA confirmed the underground portions were likely rendered inoperable, but the enriched uranium stored at greater depth survived. The tunnels at Isfahan were not struck directly — the U.S. targeted their entrances with Tomahawk missiles to deny access, because the storage area itself was acknowledged as too deep. [3][19] Iran subsequently reinforced those entrances with concrete barriers and soil and, according to satellite imagery, may have retained or restored access through at least one portal. [20]

The MOP was the end of the conventional spectrum. It has been used. The deepest targets survived.

The MOP Depletion Timeline

The U.S. Air Force awarded Boeing a sole-source contract in February 2026 to produce replacement GBU-57s, explicitly to restore inventories expended in Operation Midnight Hammer. [6] The justification notice states Boeing is the only qualified producer and retains exclusive control of technical data. Replacement tailkits are projected for delivery beginning January 2028. Full weapon assemblies are also being procured, but quantities and final delivery timelines remain classified. [7]

During Epic Fury, B-2s have continued striking hardened Iranian targets with 2,000-pound-class penetrator bombs (BLU-109/JDAM), which can penetrate several meters of reinforced concrete but are categorically insufficient against the deeply buried facilities that house Iran’s surviving nuclear material. [21] The distinction matters: the U.S. retains the ability to strike hardened targets. It does not retain unlimited ability to strike the deepest targets, because the weapon designed for that mission has been partially expended and cannot be replaced for nearly two years.

The Air Force is developing a Next-Generation Penetrator (NGP) intended to succeed the MOP, reportedly lighter at under 22,000 pounds but using newer technologies. [7] The NGP does not currently exist as a deliverable weapon. It is a development program. The gap between the depleted MOP inventory and the NGP’s eventual fielding is the conventional capability gap that defines this assessment.

The June 2025 Precedent

Before Operation Midnight Hammer, the tactical nuclear question was already on the table. The Guardian reported in June 2025, citing U.S. sources, that defense officials had been told only a tactical nuclear weapon could penetrate deep enough to destroy Fordow. [2] The report noted that Trump was not considering nuclear use at that time, and that the option had not been presented by Secretary Hegseth or General Caine.

That was June 2025. The Fordow facility was the deepest known target. Since then, the Pickaxe Mountain facility — deeper and under harder rock — has advanced significantly. The Isfahan tunnels have been further fortified. And the conventional MOP inventory has been drawn down.

The assessment that drove the Guardian reporting has not been superseded. It has been compounded.

The Iranian Command Vacuum

On the morning of Trump’s civilizational threat, The Times reported — citing a diplomatic memo based on U.S. and Israeli intelligence shared with Gulf allies — that Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei is unconscious and receiving medical treatment in Qom, unable to participate in regime decision-making. [10] He was wounded in the same February 28 strike that killed his father, his mother, his wife, and one of his sons. [23]

No confirmed video or audio of Mojtaba Khamenei has been released since Day 1. Two written statements have been attributed to him and read by presenters on state television. A video released April 5-6 purporting to show him in a military command center analyzing a map of Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant was debunked as AI-generated. [24]

Israeli media has cited sources stating that Mojtaba Khamenei does not control Iran and that the IRGC most likely holds de facto state authority. [25] If this assessment is accurate, the entity Trump is demanding make a deal by 8:00 PM tonight — the Supreme Leader of Iran — is unconscious in a hospital bed in Qom. The entity that may actually hold command authority — the IRGC — has publicly stated it will respond beyond the region and deprive the U.S. and its allies of oil and gas “for many years” if its red lines are crossed. [26]

There is no interlocutor capable of delivering the capitulation Trump’s deadline demands. The structural impossibility of compliance does not register in the behavioral pattern of a president who escalates when confronted with political failure rather than recalibrating.

(U) STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS

The Deeply Buried Target Problem Has Three Tiers

Tier 1 — Destroyed or severely damaged by MOP/Tomahawk (June 2025): Fordow enrichment halls (12 MOPs on ventilation shafts), Natanz aboveground enrichment R&D (Israeli strikes), Isfahan conversion/metal/fuel production buildings (Tomahawk).

Tier 2 — Entrances sealed but underground contents likely intact: Isfahan tunnel complex (entrances collapsed by Tomahawk, storage area too deep for MOP, enriched uranium assessed as surviving), Fordow deeper storage areas, Natanz underground halls (two MOPs, assessed likely inoperable but material may remain).

Tier 3 — Never struck, assessed as beyond MOP capability: Pickaxe Mountain (up to 100 meters under granite, construction ongoing, may contain centrifuge equipment or uranium stocks, intentionally built deeper than MOP penetration). [4][5][17][18]

Tier 3 defines the conventional ceiling. If the political objective is the physical destruction of Pickaxe Mountain — and the administration has signaled that the complete elimination of Iranian nuclear capability is a war aim — then the conventional means to achieve it do not exist.

What Fills the Gap Between Objective and Capability

Three options exist for targets beyond MOP reach:

Option A — Ground forces. Commando teams infiltrate and destroy facilities from within. Secretary Rubio has stated publicly that “people are going to have to go and get it.” [27] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Foreign Policy, CSIS, Al Jazeera, and multiple defense analysts have assessed this option in detail. Isfahan is 480 kilometers inland. The operation would require securing an airfield, transporting heavy excavation equipment through an active warzone, handling toxic uranium hexafluoride in buried tunnels, and sustaining forces against IRGC opposition for days or weeks. [28][29][30] The 31st MEU is in theater; the 11th MEU en route; the 82nd Airborne deploying. The ground force buildup is the administration’s apparent answer. Whether it is a viable answer is a separate assessment. NSD has published its analysis: the Inchon Trap. [31]

Option B — Accept the gap. Declare victory, leave the enriched uranium entombed, and accept the residual nuclear capability. Trump has made contradictory statements on this: on March 31, he described the uranium as “so deeply buried” and “pretty safe”; by March 29, he had threatened that Iran would not “have a country” if it did not surrender the material. [32] The CSIS assessed that ending the war without resolving the uranium stockpile would “galvanize Iran to pursue a clandestine nuclear program.” [33] Iran reportedly offered to blend down its HEU during pre-war negotiations that Trump terminated by attacking. [34]

Option C — Tactical nuclear weapon. A low-yield nuclear device capable of penetrating to depths that conventional munitions cannot reach. The B-2 Spirit can deliver the B61-12 gravity bomb, which has a dial-a-yield capability from 0.3 to 50 kilotons and a guided tail kit for precision delivery. [35] The B-2 has operated over Iranian airspace in both Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury with apparent impunity. The delivery mechanism is operational and proven.

Option C has been assessed by U.S. defense officials as the only way to guarantee destruction of the deepest facilities. [2] It has not been presented to Trump as a recommendation, according to reporting from June 2025. Whether that firewall remains intact after the firing of the Army Chief of Staff, systematic purges of senior officers who provide contrary advice, and 39 days of escalation without ceiling — is itself a critical unknown.

The Radiological Self-Defeat Problem

Option C against nuclear infrastructure is self-defeating on its own terms. The uranium stockpile at Isfahan and Pickaxe Mountain is stored as uranium hexafluoride gas in small, separated canisters. In its current form, this material is radiologically modest — U-235 is a weak alpha emitter with a half-life of 700 million years. Multiple nuclear physicists assessed after Operation Midnight Hammer that the uranium itself posed minimal radiological hazard if dispersed by conventional bombing; the main danger was chemical toxicity from uranium hexafluoride gas, which is corrosive but heavy and does not travel far. The IAEA confirmed no off-site radiation increase from the June 2025 strikes. [39][40]

A nuclear detonation changes the calculus categorically. The weapon’s own fission products — cesium-137 (half-life 30 years), strontium-90 (29 years), iodine-131 (8 days) — are orders of magnitude more radioactive than the uranium being targeted. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists assessed that a nuclear strike on these facilities would generate “vastly more radiation risk from the radioactive fallout of the nuclear explosion itself.” [41] An underground nuclear detonation near stored uranium hexafluoride also risks triggering criticality events — uncontrolled fission chain reactions — in the uranium stockpile itself, particularly at higher enrichment levels or if canisters are compressed by the blast. [42]

Consequently, a tactical nuclear weapon used against Pickaxe Mountain or Isfahan does not solve the nuclear problem. It irradiates the site, contaminates the uranium beyond any possibility of verification or safe recovery, disperses fission products across an unpredictable fallout radius, and creates the radiological disaster that the conventional campaign was specifically designed to avoid. The weapon eliminates the target by becoming the problem the target represented.

This is not a marginal consideration. It is a structural contradiction that undermines the institutional justification for Option C as applied to nuclear infrastructure. The rational case for tactical nuclear employment against deeply buried nuclear facilities collapses on radiological grounds. The only targeting logic that survives is punitive.

Two Targeting Logics

This assessment must distinguish between two fundamentally different frameworks for how tactical nuclear employment enters the decision space.

The institutional logic follows a rational-strategic pathway: deeply buried nuclear facilities cannot be destroyed by conventional means; the MOP inventory is depleted; ground forces face unacceptable risk; the stated war aim of permanently eliminating Iranian nuclear capability cannot be achieved without the one weapon that can penetrate to the required depth. This logic points at Pickaxe Mountain and Isfahan. It is the justification that the national security bureaucracy would construct — and has already partially constructed, per the June 2025 Guardian reporting. It is analytically coherent. And as demonstrated above, it is radiologically self-defeating.

The behavioral logic follows the documented escalation pattern of this specific president. Across 39 days, every escalation has been directed not at military-strategic targets selected by targeting doctrine but at the people and institutions that refuse to submit. Universities. Petrochemical plants. Power grids. Bridges. The expanding target set is not calibrated to degrade Iranian military capability — it is calibrated to inflict suffering on the population whose leadership defies the president. The “civilization will die tonight” statement is not targeting language. It is annihilationist language directed at a people and a place.

The place is Tehran. The leadership that refuses to capitulate is in Tehran. The IRGC central command — the entity that may hold de facto authority with Mojtaba Khamenei incapacitated — is headquartered in Tehran. The symbolic and psychological value of destroying a capital city is precisely the kind of “consequence” this president has shown he processes: visible, dramatic, personally attributable.

Tehran has no deeply buried nuclear infrastructure. There is no institutional-strategic justification for a nuclear strike on a city of 9 million people. But the behavioral pattern does not follow institutional-strategic justification. It follows personal compulsion. A president who has publicly threatened that “a whole civilization will die tonight” is not describing a precision strike on a mountain facility in the desert that he has never mentioned by name. He is describing what he sees when he imagines the destruction of Iran — which is Tehran.

The NSD assesses that both logics are live and that they serve different functions. The institutional logic is the justification. The behavioral logic is the trajectory. The most dangerous scenario is the one in which the behavioral impulse to punish Tehran is laundered through the institutional vocabulary of deeply buried targets and conventional limits — a decision made for one reason and explained by another.

The National Security Desk offers these posts freely, but your support is necessary and appreciated. Please subscribe, paid if you’re able, or leave a tip.

Subscribe now

Thank you

Leave a tip!

Share

Leave a comment

(U) REFERENCES

[1] Multiple sources · “Trump warns ‘a whole civilization will die tonight’” · Truth Social post, 7 April 2026. Reported by NBC News (https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/live-blog/live-updates-iran-war-trump-deadline-hormuz-infrastructure-ceasefire-rcna267039), ABC News (https://abcnews.com/International/live-updates/iran-live-updates-casualties-reported-missile-strikes-israel/?id=131757074), CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/07/iran-war-trump-deadline.html), Al Jazeera (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/4/7/iran-war-live-trump-warns-of-devastating-attacks-as-deal-deadline-nears), Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-iran-warning-whole-civilization-die-11792792), Arab News (https://www.arabnews.com/node/2639026/middle-east) · 7 April 2026

[2] Truthout, citing The Guardian · “US Reportedly Assesses It Would Need to Drop Nuclear Bomb to Destroy Iran Nuclear Facility” · https://truthout.org/articles/us-reportedly-assesses-only-a-nuclear-bomb-could-destroy-iran-nuclear-facility/ · June 2025

[3] Arms Control Association · “The U.S. War on Iran: New and Lingering Nuclear Risks” · https://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2026-03/us-war-iran-new-and-lingering-nuclear-risks · March 2026

[4] Jerusalem Post · “IDF has not given confidence war will neutralize Iran 60% uranium or Pickaxe Mountain threats” · https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-890013 · March 2026

[5] Institute for Science and International Security · “Update on Iran’s Mountain Facilities South of the Natanz Enrichment Plant” · https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/update-on-irans-mountain-facilities-south-of-the-natanz-enrichment-plant · October 2025

[6] Army Recognition · “U.S. Orders New GBU-57 Bunker Buster Bombs After B-2 Bombers Strikes on Iran Nuclear Sites” · https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2026/u-s-orders-new-gbu-57-bunker-buster-bombs-after-b-2-bombers-strikes-on-iran-nuclear-sites · 16 February 2026

[7] Aviation A2Z · “Largest Air Force in the World Restocks Bunker Buster Bombs After B-2 Iran Strikes” · https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2026/02/18/us-air-force-restocks-bunker-buster-bombs-after-b-2-iran-strikes/ · 18 February 2026

[8] NSD SITREP-19 · 6 April 2026 · Trump Easter Sunday Truth Social post

[9] NSD SITREP-19 · Scenario 5 assessment · 6 April 2026

[10] The Times (UK) · Diplomatic memo on Mojtaba Khamenei condition · Reported by Jerusalem Post (https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-892289), Ynet (https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bykq11gfnbl), i24NEWS (https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/artc-iran-s-supreme-leader-mojtaba-khamenei-is-unconscious-in-qom-report), ANI (https://aninews.in/news/world/middle-east/irans-supreme-leader-mojtaba-khamenei-unconscious-receiving-treatment-in-qom-reports-times-uk20260407095144/) · 7 April 2026

[11] PBS News · “How U.S. stealth bombers struck Iran’s nuclear sites without detection” · https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-u-s-stealth-bombers-struck-irans-nuclear-sites-without-detection · 22 June 2025

[12] The War Zone · “B-2 Strikes On Iran: What We Know About Operation Midnight Hammer” · https://www.twz.com/air/b-2-strikes-on-iran-what-we-know-about-operation-midnight-hammer · 22 June 2025

[13] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists · “Trump may send US troops to neutralize Iran’s highly enriched uranium” · https://thebulletin.org/2026/03/trump-may-send-us-troops-to-neutralize-irans-highly-enriched-uranium-there-are-no-good-options/ · March 2026. DIA assessment cited.

[14] JINSA · “Infographic: Severing Iran’s Path to a Nuclear Weapon” · https://jinsa.org/jinsa_report/infographic-severing-irans-path-to-a-nuclear-weapon/ · January 2026

[15] CSIS · “Satellite Imagery Analysis Reveals Possible Signs of Renewed Nuclear Activity in Iran” · https://www.csis.org/analysis/csis-satellite-imagery-analysis-reveals-possible-signs-renewed-nuclear-activity-iran · November 2025

[16] JINSA · “Where is Iran’s Enriched Uranium Now?” · https://jinsa.org/where-is-irans-enriched-uranium-now/ · March 2026

[17] Institute for Science and International Security · “Comprehensive Updated Assessment of Iranian Nuclear Sites Five Months After the 12-Day War” · https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/comprehensive-updated-assessment-of-iranian-nuclear-sites-five-months-after-the-12-day-war · November 2025

[18] JINSA · “Where is Iran’s Enriched Uranium Now?” · Jonathan Ruhe quoted · March 2026

[19] Wikipedia · “2025 United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites” · https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_strikes_on_Iranian_nuclear_sites · Updated April 2026

[20] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists · Isfahan tunnel entrance activity, satellite imagery · March 2026

[21] Army Recognition · “U.S. B-2 Bombers Strike Iran’s Underground Missile Launchers with 2,000-lb Bunker-Buster Bombs” · https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2026/u-s-b-2-bombers-strike-irans-underground-missile-launchers-with-2-000-lb-bunker-buster-bombs · 6 March 2026

[22] NSD SITREP series · Deadline tracking · March-April 2026

[23] Multiple sources · Mojtaba Khamenei wounded in February 28 strike · The Times (UK), Jerusalem Post, Ynet · April 2026

[24] NSD SITREP-19 · AI-generated video assessment · 6 April 2026

[25] i24NEWS · Sources stating IRGC holds de facto control · 7 April 2026

[26] Al Jazeera · “IRGC says will respond beyond region” · https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/4/7/iran-war-live-trump-warns-of-devastating-attacks-as-deal-deadline-nears · 7 April 2026

[27] NSD SITREP-19 · Rubio statement on ground forces · 6 April 2026

[28] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists · Ground operation assessment · March 2026

[29] Foreign Policy · “What a U.S. Operation to Get Iran’s Uranium Would Look Like” · https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/04/01/us-operation-iran-highly-enriched-uranium-nuclear-bomb-trump-war/ · 1 April 2026

[30] CSIS · “Options for the United States to Resolve the Iran Nuclear Challenge” · https://www.csis.org/analysis/options-united-states-resolve-iran-nuclear-challenge · April 2026

[31] NSD MILab · “The Inchon Trap” · https://milab.substack.com/p/the-inchon-trap · 26 March 2026

[32] Foreign Policy · Trump contradictory statements on uranium retrieval · April 2026

[33] CSIS · Iran nuclear challenge options assessment · April 2026

[34] The Conversation · “Iran’s nuclear materials and equipment remain a danger in an active war zone” · https://theconversation.com/irans-nuclear-materials-and-equipment-remain-a-danger-in-an-active-war-zone-278008 · March 2026

[35] NSD assessment based on public B61-12 specifications · Dial-a-yield: 0.3 to 50 kilotons · GPS/INS guided tail kit · B-2 delivery certified

[36] NBC News · Vance statement on military objectives · 7 April 2026

[37] ZeroHedge, citing Clash Report · Kharg Island strikes on morning of April 7 · https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/75-gulf-energy-assets-damaged-us-iran-war-supply-shock-intensifies · 7 April 2026

[38] JCPOA withdrawal · May 2018 · Public record

[39] Time · “The Environmental Risks From Bombing Iran’s Nuclear Sites” · https://time.com/7297135/environmental-risks-bombing-iran-nuclear-enrichment-sites/ · 24 June 2025. Multiple nuclear physicists quoted: Paddy Regan (University of Surrey) — uranium is “a damp squib” radiologically; James Smith (University of Portsmouth) — uranium “not particularly hazardous”; Emily Caffrey (University of Alabama Birmingham) — uranium hexafluoride gas “heavy, not going to go very far.”

[40] NPR · “U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites show no sign of widespread environmental impact” · https://www.npr.org/2025/06/22/nx-s1-5441717/iran-nuclear-strikes · 22 June 2025. Edwin Lyman (Union of Concerned Scientists) — uranium isotopes at enrichment sites “at the low end of hazard with regard to radioactive materials.” IAEA confirmed no off-site radiological impact.

[41] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists · “The radiation risks of Iran’s nuclear program, with or without a strike on Fordow” · https://thebulletin.org/2025/06/the-radiation-risks-of-irans-nuclear-program-with-or-without-a-strike-on-fordow/ · 23 June 2025. Assessed nuclear weapon detonation would produce “vastly more radiation risk from the radioactive fallout of the nuclear explosion itself.” Also assessed criticality risk from uranium hexafluoride reacting with moisture under blast conditions.

[42] CSIS · “The Fallout Factor in Targeting Iran’s Nuclear Program” · https://www.csis.org/analysis/fallout-factor-targeting-irans-nuclear-program · 13 August 2025. Assessed Operation Midnight Hammer “likely tested the limits of how much can be destroyed without resorting to tactical nuclear weapons that could trigger broader environmental consequences.”

[43] International Court of Justice · Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons · 8 July 1996 · “If an envisaged use of weapons would not meet the requirements of humanitarian law, a threat to engage in such use would also be contrary to that law.”

[44] Arms Control Association · “The 1996 ICJ Opinion and the Legality of Nuclear Weapons” · https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998-06/arms-control-today/1996-icj-opinion-and-legality-nuclear-weapons · ICJ President Bedjaoui: inability to rule on extreme self-defense “can in no manner be interpreted to mean that it is leaving the door ajar.”

[45] Harvard Human Rights Journal · Davies, “Direct and Public Incitement to Commit Genocide” · https://journals.law.harvard.edu/hrj/wp-content/uploads/sites/83/2009/09/davies.pdf · ICTR Nahimana et al. framework: inchoate crime, no requirement that genocide be committed.

[46] Multiple sources · Trump “obliterating that country,” “they’re animals,” “Stone Ages” statements · Easter Egg Roll April 5-6, Truth Social, White House press events · March-April 2026

[47] Cambridge University Press · *Nuclear Weapons Law* (2022) · “There can be no doubt that the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes do not suddenly cease to have relevance simply because nuclear weapons are involved.”

[48] Cambridge University Press · *Nuclear Weapons Law* · Chapter on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as applied to nuclear operations

[49] Jurist · “Force, Vetoes, and Sanctions: Why the ICC Can’t Touch a US President” · https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2026/03/force-vetoes-and-sanctions-why-the-icc-cant-touch-a-us-president/ · 30 March 2026. Rome Statute “explicitly rejects immunity for heads of state” but enforcement structurally blocked.

[50] Former Vice President Cheney, cited in multiple sources on nuclear command authority: president “doesn’t have to check with anybody, he doesn’t have to call Congress, he doesn’t have to check with the courts.”

[51] Major Harold Hering · Discharged 1975 after asking during Vandenberg AFB training: “How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?” System’s answer: officers authenticate orders, not evaluate the sanity of the commander-in-chief.

[52] CQ Brown fired as CJCS via Truth Social, February 2025. Randy George ordered to retire April 3, 2026, during combat operations. Hegseth fired top military adviser and civilian advisory roster, October 2025. Sources: multiple, compiled in Perplexity NSD research output.

[53] NNSA/DOGE · Approximately 300 nuclear arsenal workers at Pantex Plant inadvertently fired, February 2025; most reinstated after Congressional outcry. Sources: multiple, compiled in Perplexity NSD research output.

[54] 7 Things analysis (March 2026), citing Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith: “The people who would or could slow this down — the ones who would ask questions, request a legal review, or play for time — have been removed.”

[55] B61-12 · Production completed December 2024. Approximately 200 stockpiled (FAS assessment). Certified on B-2A Spirit November 2023. Selectable yields: 0.3, 1.5, 10, 50 kt. NNSA/DOD official sources compiled in Perplexity NSD research output.

[56] Nina Tannenwald · *The Nuclear Taboo* · Cambridge University Press, 2008. Conditions for taboo erosion: tactical weapons framed as “discriminate,” leadership not socialized into deterrence norms, delegitimization of target, collapse of arms control architecture.

[57] New START · Expired 5 February 2026 · No successor framework. Nuclear Education Trust (December 2025): “the nuclear taboo is eroding.”

[58] Proliferation consequences · Arms Control Association (February 2026): Iran “most likely country to exit the NPT.” 7 Things analysis: “Iran stayed in the NPT and got bombed. North Korea withdrew and is untouched.” Saudi Arabia, South Korea (75-76% public support for independent arsenal), Japan, Turkey assessed as proliferation risks. Sources compiled in Perplexity NSD research output.

[59] Colangelo/Kehler/Hyten framework · Anthony Colangelo, “The Duty to Disobey Illegal Nuclear Strike Orders,” Harvard National Security Journal, 2018 · https://scholar.smu.edu/law_faculty/185/ · Gen. Robert Kehler Congressional testimony on right to refuse · Gen. John Hyten (2017): “If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail for the rest of your life.” · Truthout compilation: https://truthout.org/articles/the-duty-to-disobey-a-nuclear-launch-order/

[60] Lawfare analysis (2024) · UCMJ Articles 90, 92 — civilian authorities may not be in chain of command for court martial liability purposes · Cited in Perplexity NSD research output

[61] USNI Proceedings · “Legal Launch” · https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/june/legal-launch · If conventional weapons can achieve the same objective as nuclear weapons near civilians, nuclear order “may be manifestly illegal.”

[62] Allied basing denial · Spain refused basing rights · CFR: “Europe’s Disjointed Response to the U.S.-Israeli War with Iran” · https://www.cfr.org/articles/europes-disjointed-response-to-the-u-s-israeli-war-with-iran · Germany hosts B61-12 under NATO nuclear sharing; refusal legally within German authority.

[63] Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons · Article 1(d) prohibits threatening nuclear use · 93 signatories, 70 ratifications · Tandfonline legal analysis (2024): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2024.2317489

[64] 100+ international law experts open letter (April 3, 2026) warning U.S. strikes could amount to war crimes · Macron: strikes cannot be approved “outside of international law” · CFR compilation

[65] Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act (S. 192, Markey/Merkley/Warren, January 2025) · Nuclear First-Strike Security Act (H.R. 3564, Peters, 2025) · Georgetown Law 2019 analysis: Congress can constitutionally enact no-first-use legislation · https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=nslb

[66] Federal injunction option · Colangelo framework applied to court jurisdiction · Whether an order violates IHL is a legal question, not a political question · Low probability, high record-creation value ---

(U) STANDING REFERENCES

NSD SITREP-19 · Day 38 Assessment including Scenario 5 · 6 April 2026 · nsdsitrep.substack.com

▸ “Simply Blowing Things Up ≠ War” — MILab · 2 April 2026 · milab.substack.com/p/simply-blowing-things-up-war

▸ “The Inchon Trap” — MILab · 26 March 2026 · milab.substack.com/p/the-inchon-trap

▸ “On War and Warfare” — MILab · milab.substack.com/p/on-war-and-warfare

▸ “The ‘Leaked’ Document: Tehran’s War Plan for Regime Change in Washington” — MILab · 11 March 2026 · milab.substack.com/p/leaked-document-tehrans-war-plan

▸ “Is the USS Lincoln in the Kill Zone?” — MILab · 2 March 2026 · milab.substack.com/p/is-the-uss-lincoln-in-the-kill-zone

▸ NSD NUKES Series — Unconventional Nuclear Employment · nukes.substack.com — The analytical vertical built for this problem set: nuclear weapons employment outside the Cold War deterrence framework, where the structural constraints that prevented use for 81 years do not apply.

WASHINGTON DC 01APL2026

NSD Podcasts

Iran Still Has Enough Uranium for Ten Nuclear Bombs

WASHINGTON DC 1APL2026…

Listen now

3 months ago · The National Security Desk

ABSTRACT

The Trump administration claimed Operation Midnight Hammer “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. It did not. Approximately 441 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity — enough for ten nuclear weapons — survived the June 2025 strikes. Most of it is now believed sealed inside the Isfahan tunnel complex or scattered across sites the United States cannot reach, including Pickaxe Mountain, a granite bunker deeper than any weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate. The IAEA has not inspected any bombed facility since the strikes. Nobody knows with confidence where all the material is. This assessment traces the status and likely location of Iran’s surviving enriched uranium, evaluates the special operations mission being discussed to secure it — a mission that would require not a commando raid but a combined-arms ground campaign with a massive force protection footprint — and examines how the policy trajectory from the 2018 JCPOA withdrawal through two military campaigns has produced a nuclear problem more dangerous than the one it was supposed to solve. Iranian hardliners are now openly calling for NPT withdrawal and a nuclear weapon. The inspection regime that once constrained all of this was abandoned in 2018. The bombs were supposed to replace it. They didn’t.

**EDITOR’S NOTE** (3 April 2026): Since publication, the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have reported that President Trump requested this uranium seizure plan and received a military briefing on it in the week prior to publication.[1]

[1] “Risky commando plan to seize Iran’s uranium came at Trump’s request,” The Washington Post, April 1, 2026; reporting by U.S. officials to Wall Street Journal and other outlets, March 30–April 2, 2026.

(U) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approximately 441 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity survived Operation Midnight Hammer. By IAEA calculations, that is enough fissile material for the cores of ten nuclear weapons if enriched to weapons-grade. The Trump administration’s claim that the June 2025 strikes “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program was contradicted by U.S. intelligence assessments within seventy-two hours — and has since become the false premise upon which a second, larger war was launched. Much of the surviving stockpile is now believed sealed inside the Isfahan tunnel complex, buried beneath rubble and deliberately backfilled soil, while unknown quantities may have been relocated to Pickaxe Mountain (Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La), a granite-encased bunker deeper than any facility the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator can reach. The IAEA has not inspected any bombed site since June 2025. The United States does not know with confidence where all the enriched uranium is.[1]

The strategic failure this assessment traces is not primarily military. It is political, and its causal chain is legible. Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) removed the inspection regime and enrichment caps that held Iran’s uranium at 3.67% purity and 300 kilograms total. By June 2025, the stockpile had reached 441 kilograms at 60%—a level at which 99% of the separative work required for weapons-grade material has already been performed.[2] The strikes that were supposed to solve that problem did not destroy the fissile material. The war that followed—launched on 28 February 2026 during the month of Ramadan, while diplomatic talks were reportedly producing movement—has now produced the worst of multiple possible outcomes: a scattered, partially inaccessible stockpile in an active war zone, Iranian internal politics pushing openly toward NPT withdrawal, and a Counter-Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) ground mission being discussed as the only remaining option to secure material that verified diplomacy was designed to constrain.

(U) SECTION I — WHAT WE KNOW [FACT]

The Obliteration Claim Versus Reality

On 21–22 June 2025, hours after U.S. B-2 Spirit bombers struck Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan with fourteen GBU-57A/B penetrators, President Trump declared the facilities “completely and totally obliterated.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth went further, asserting that not only were the facilities destroyed, but so were Iran’s nuclear ambitions. These claims were made within hours of the strikes — long before any professional Battle Damage Assessment could have been completed for targets buried under dozens of meters of rock and concrete, where the critical question was not whether the surface had been hit but whether the underground storage chambers and their contents had been destroyed. No BDA process in the history of strikes on hardened deeply buried targets has produced confident conclusions that fast. Within forty-eight hours, the Joint Chiefs Chairman offered a considerably more measured assessment. By 24 June, both CNN and the New York Times reported that initial U.S. intelligence assessments found the strikes had not eliminated the core elements of Iran’s nuclear program and had only delayed it by months. A subsequent Pentagon assessment offered a more favorable but still limited conclusion: a setback of approximately two years.[3]

The administration’s own principals eventually conceded the gap between claim and reality. JD Vance and other senior officials acknowledged what Iranian state media had reported from day one: enriched uranium at Fordow had been moved before the strikes. Iranian state-run Mehr news agency cited an unnamed source confirming relocation. A senior Israeli official subsequently confirmed that some 60%-enriched uranium at Isfahan—apparently buried too deep to be hit—remained accessible.[4]

The IAEA has provided the most authoritative external accounting. As of June 2025, Iran possessed approximately 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%—enough, by the agency’s calculations, for the explosive cores of ten nuclear weapons if enriched further to 90%. Director-General Rafael Grossi stated that Iran could resume enrichment on a more limited scale within months. The IAEA’s November 2025 quarterly report confirmed that seven of Iran’s nuclear sites were affected by military strikes while thirteen remained unharmed. Critically, the IAEA has not been allowed access to the bombed sites since June 2025 and cannot confirm what happened to the uranium, whether containers were damaged, or whether material was dispersed.[5]

Where Is the Enriched Uranium?

The most authoritative public assessment places the bulk of Iran’s surviving enriched uranium inside the underground tunnel complex at Isfahan. In March 2026, Grossi told reporters in Paris that slightly more than 200 kilograms of 60%-enriched uranium was stored at Isfahan during the watchdog’s last inspection. The tunnels appear to have survived with structural integrity largely intact; the U.S. strategy targeted the entrances rather than the interior storage chambers. Satellite imagery confirmed consistent vehicle activity around tunnel entrances in the months following the strikes, suggesting Iranian forces were clearing debris and regaining access. By early February 2026, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) confirmed via high-resolution imagery that all three entrances to the Isfahan tunnel complex had been completely backfilled with soil—effectively sealing whatever is inside and making both further airstrikes and ground access profoundly difficult.[6]

Additional quantities of enriched uranium are believed entombed under rubble at Fordow and Natanz. Caitlin Ruhe of the Arms Control Association assessed that most of the material is still in underground complexes at these sites, noting that Iran’s opacity has long complicated monitoring. There are also serious concerns about material moved before the strikes. A truck was observed exiting the Isfahan tunnel facility immediately following the initial Israeli strikes on 13 June 2025. FDD analyst Andrea Stricker assessed that Iran had stored part of the enriched uranium in easily transportable containers and may have moved quantities to deeper facilities. U.S. intelligence has separately assessed that some of the stockpile may have been relocated to Pickaxe Mountain.[7]

Pickaxe Mountain (Kolang Gaz La) is located just 1.6 kilometers south of the Natanz enrichment complex in the Zagros Mountains and was not targeted in Operation Midnight Hammer. It is buried 80–100 meters deep in granite—deeper than Fordow, which was itself the deepest facility the United States hit with its largest penetrators. Satellite imagery from February 2026 showed newly poured concrete at tunnel entrances and ongoing reinforcement consistent with efforts to outfit the site for sensitive nuclear work. IAEA Director Grossi was told it was “none of your business” when he inquired about activities at the site. Trump himself acknowledged in March 2026 that Iran had resumed nuclear activities at a new, deeper site.[8]

The Deception Layer

Beyond the question of physical location, there is an active deception dimension. Carnegie Endowment senior fellow George Perkovich has warned that Iran has likely prepared for any raid by deploying hundreds or thousands of dummy containers to confuse special forces attempting a seizure. This compounds the operational problem enormously: operators would be handling containers in a radioactive environment, under fire, unable to distinguish live material from decoys.[9]

(U) SECTION II — STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS [STRUCTURE]

The CWMD Mission: What Special Operations Can and Cannot Do

In 2016, the Department of Defense designated U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) as the lead entity for the Counter-Weapons of Mass Destruction mission — a redesignation from Strategic Command that the author originated and drove to completion from 2014 against considerable institutional resistance, in what was informally known as the Three Amigos project. JSOC-subordinate units—primarily Delta Force and SEAL Team Six—have trained for nuclear contingency scenarios for decades, initially driven by the post-Soviet loose nukes problem. Delta Force has specifically trained on Hardened Deeply Buried Target (HDBT) missions since the 1990s, practicing “Deep Underground Shelter” penetrations at the Nevada National Security Site using sensitive radiological detection equipment.[10]

The Army maintains three Nuclear Disablement Teams (NDTs) stationed at Aberdeen Proving Ground, each composed of Nuclear and Countering WMD officers, Explosive Ordnance Disposal officers, Nuclear Medical Science officers, and Health Physics noncommissioned officers. These units are designed to exploit and disable nuclear and radiological WMD infrastructure. The Pentagon sought $14.4 million in FY2021 to build a dedicated 19,200-square-foot training facility for JSOC to practice raiding hardened facility targets, acknowledging that no such facility existed.[11]

The mission as discussed for Iran, however, is not a standard CWMD scenario. It is something qualitatively different, and this is the structural constraint that public discourse consistently understates. A nuclear material seizure or neutralization at Isfahan, Fordow, or Natanz would require, at minimum: a Tier-1 SOF breach force to penetrate the tunnel complex, supported by combat engineers with heavy earth-moving equipment to clear rubble and backfilled soil that Iranian engineers have deliberately packed at every entrance; Nuclear Disablement Team personnel and Department of Energy specialists operating in full CBRN protective gear, handling pressurized uranium hexafluoride (UF₆) cylinders that react with atmospheric moisture to form hydrogen fluoride—a highly corrosive and acutely toxic gas; sustained perimeter security against IRGC counterattack, given that the Haqtab unit tasked with protecting nuclear sites has indicated it would treat any raid as an existential threat requiring maximum force response; and a logistical footprint that includes earth-moving machinery that cannot be delivered by helicopter and requires ground lines of communication that themselves demand security.[12]

CNN reported in March 2026, citing seven current and former officials familiar with the military planning, that recovering Iran’s enriched uranium would require a significant number of U.S. ground troops beyond a small special operations footprint.[13] A former senior official who spent over twenty years extracting weapons-grade materials from volatile regions stated that it would be “nearly impossible” for American and Israeli special forces to infiltrate hostile territory and successfully extract or neutralize the fissile materials. The Stimson Center concluded that to truly effect regime change and secure WMD-relevant material, the United States may need to commit ground forces—and that verifying dismantlement would require large numbers of investigators and inspectors at the very least.[14]

The force protection arithmetic is unforgiving. The February 2025 Venezuela raid—which captured one person from one building in a comparatively permissive environment—required 200 special operators, hundreds of aircraft, ships offshore, and standby assets to destroy three airfields. The Iran CWMD mission is orders of magnitude more complex. Former officials have stated that identifying and extracting or neutralizing all material could require days or weeks of work, not hours. This is not a raid. It is a ground war fought inside a tunnel system, with radioactive and toxic hazards, against a state military that has specifically prepared for this scenario.[15]

The Uranium Hexafluoride Hazard

The specific form in which Iran’s enriched uranium is stored compounds every operational risk described above. The material exists as uranium hexafluoride (UF₆) gas in pressurized cylinders. UF₆ is chemically volatile: any breach of a storage container—whether from weapons fire, structural collapse, or mishandling under combat stress—produces hydrogen fluoride, which causes severe chemical burns on contact and is lethal at relatively low concentrations in an enclosed space. A single compromised cylinder inside the Isfahan tunnels could turn a successful breach into a mass-casualty event for the extraction force. The protective equipment required to work safely in a UF₆ environment further degrades the speed and agility on which SOF operations depend. Compounding this is the criticality risk: concentrating multiple containers during evacuation—precisely what rapid extraction under fire demands—could theoretically trigger an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction.[16]

The MOP Inventory Problem

There is a further structural constraint that receives almost no public attention: the United States may have largely exhausted the weapon it used. Operation Midnight Hammer consumed fourteen GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrators — twelve on Fordow, two on Natanz. The last publicly confirmed inventory figure, from November 2015, was twenty units. Production since then is classified, but the available indicators suggest the stockpile was never large. Defense Security Monitor assessed that fewer than six MOPs likely remained after the June 2025 strikes. Following the operation, the Air Force issued a sole-source replenishment contract to Boeing for new MOP tail kits and weapon system components to “replace expended units” — with delivery projected to begin in January 2028. That is a two-year lead time to replace a weapon the administration may need tomorrow. The contracting document itself acknowledged that the total pre- and post-strike inventory remains undisclosed even at the unclassified level. The Air Force has also described the MOP as a “high-value, low-density” munition — procurement language for a weapon that exists in very small numbers.[17]

The implications are direct. Pickaxe Mountain sits deeper in granite than Fordow, which absorbed twelve MOPs without its tunnel interior being breached. If the current MOP stockpile is in single digits, and the replacement production run will not deliver until 2028, the kinetic option against Iran’s next-generation hardened facility is not merely theoretically inadequate — it may be physically unavailable. The assumption that the United States can always “hit them again” rests on an inventory that the United States may have already spent.

(U) SECTION III — EMERGING PATTERNS AND WEAK SIGNALS

The most consequential emerging pattern is the shift in Iranian internal politics toward open advocacy of nuclear weaponization. As of late March 2026, Iranian hardliners are publicly demanding withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and pursuit of a nuclear weapon—positions that were taboo even six months ago. The IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency published a call for immediate NPT withdrawal on 26 March 2026. Hardline politician Mohammad Javad Larijani—brother of Ali Larijani, killed in a strike this month—urged suspension of NPT membership on state media. Conservative commentator Nasser Torabi stated on state television that the Iranian public demanded action to build a nuclear weapon.[18]

This shift is structurally significant because the two principal internal constraints on weaponization have been removed. Supreme Leader Khamenei, whose unwritten fatwa declared nuclear weapons impermissible under Islam, was killed in the 28 February strikes. Ali Larijani, identified by senior Iranian sources as another moderating influence who pushed back against hardliners on the nuclear question, was also killed. With both gone, the IRGC—which has historically argued Iran would need to pursue a weapon if the regime’s survival were threatened—now occupies the dominant position in nuclear decision-making. Whether the fatwa’s authority survives Khamenei’s death is unclear; the new supreme leader, his son Mojtaba Khamenei, has not been seen in public since his father’s death.[19]

The second weak signal concerns Pickaxe Mountain’s trajectory. The continued construction activity at a facility deeper than any the United States has successfully penetrated, combined with Iran’s refusal to discuss the site with the IAEA, suggests preparation of a facility that would be functionally immune to the weapons that were supposed to have solved the problem. If Iran establishes enrichment capability at Pickaxe Mountain, the military option that justified two campaigns becomes permanently obsolete.

Third, the IAEA’s loss of access is not merely a verification gap—it is a structural condition that makes all assessments of Iranian nuclear status inherently uncertain. Director-General Grossi stated in March 2026 that the agency has lost “continuity of knowledge” about Iran’s enriched uranium. The organization cannot verify whether Iran has suspended enrichment-related activities or determine the size, composition, or whereabouts of the stockpile. Any U.S. government claim about the status of Iran’s nuclear program—including DNI Gabbard’s assertion that the program was “obliterated”—must be evaluated against this fundamental epistemic void.[20]

(U) SECTION IV — ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis A (Consensus View — likely, 60–75%): The bulk of Iran’s enriched uranium remains sealed in the Isfahan tunnel complex and other bombed sites, partially inaccessible to both Iran and external actors. Iran is fortifying Pickaxe Mountain as a replacement enrichment facility but does not yet have operational centrifuge capability there. The hardliner push for NPT withdrawal is partly genuine, partly a negotiating tactic—intended to extract maximum concessions from any deal. The uranium remains a latent capability rather than an active weapons program. Key indicators to watch: IAEA access negotiations; satellite evidence of centrifuge-related equipment at Pickaxe Mountain; whether Iranian parliament formally votes on NPT withdrawal legislation.

Hypothesis B (Accelerated Breakout — plausible, 40–55%): Iran has already moved a significant portion of the 60%-enriched stockpile to undeclared sites, potentially including Pickaxe Mountain or facilities unknown to Western intelligence. The reported October 2025 authorization by Khamenei of miniaturized warhead development is accurate. With the IAEA locked out and the IRGC ascendant, a decision to enrich to 90% has already been taken or is imminent. The public NPT withdrawal debate is a preparatory information operation, conditioning the domestic audience for a fait accompli. Key indicators: detection of UF₆ signatures at undeclared sites; accelerated Pickaxe Mountain construction timelines; formal NPT withdrawal proceedings; absence of any Iranian engagement with IAEA inspection proposals.

Hypothesis C (Elite-Disfavored — possible but unlikely, 20–35%): The military campaigns have succeeded in delaying Iran’s program sufficiently that diplomatic re-engagement becomes viable. A successor regime or faction accepts a modified version of the 15-point proposal, trades the enriched stockpile for sanctions relief, and accepts enhanced inspections. This hypothesis requires that internal Iranian politics reverse their current trajectory, that the United States offers terms Tehran finds acceptable, and that the IRGC’s institutional dominance is checked by civilian political leadership—all conditions for which no supporting indicators currently exist. This is the outcome the Trump administration appears to be publicly pursuing. It is the least likely of the three.

(U) SECTION V — MOST LIKELY ASSESSMENT [JUDGMENT]

The net assessment is that Trump’s two-stage military approach—the 2025 strikes that left the fissile material intact, followed by the 2026 war launched during active negotiations—has produced a compounding strategic failure on every axis simultaneously. The probability of this judgment is assessed as highly likely (85%), with high confidence.

Each element of the current situation is worse than the pre-strike baseline on its own terms. The enrichment infrastructure can be rebuilt; Pickaxe Mountain suggests it is being rebuilt, at a depth that forecloses the weapon that was supposed to have solved the problem. The fissile stockpile’s survival transforms it from a known, inspected, and constrained quantity into an intelligence black hole—its location uncertain, its condition unknown, its custodians now operating without the internal political constraints that Khamenei and Larijani once provided. The CWMD ground mission now being discussed as the only remaining option is itself a consequence of diplomatic abandonment: it is the kinetic substitute for the inspection access that the JCPOA guaranteed and that no subsequent policy has replaced.

The policy thread is legible. Under the JCPOA, Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile was capped at 300 kilograms at 3.67% purity—subject to the most intensive inspection regime in arms control history. Trump’s 2018 withdrawal removed those constraints. Iran responded by progressively enriching to 20%, then 60%, accumulating a stockpile that prompted a military strike in 2025—which did not destroy it. That failure prompted a second war in 2026, which has now produced conditions under which the IRGC-dominated Iranian establishment is publicly debating whether to abandon the NPT entirely and pursue the weapon that three decades of policy were designed to prevent. The trajectory from the 2018 JCPOA withdrawal to the 2026 Iran war is a case study in how the abandonment of verified diplomacy—dismissed as weakness—can produce military commitments far more costly, far more dangerous, and far less likely to achieve their stated objectives than the agreements they replaced.

The “two weeks away” claim that justified Operation Epic Fury has a thirty-year pedigree of being wrong. Netanyahu has made at least sixteen such claims since 1992. The Arms Control Association stated in March 2026 that there was no evidence to suggest Iran was resuming proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities. The March 2025 U.S. Intelligence Community threat assessment found Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. The current war was launched based on assertions that directly contradict these assessments, during a period when nuclear negotiations were actively yielding progress.

If a ground operation to secure the material is attempted, it will place small SOF elements deep inside hostile Iranian territory, handling toxic and radioactive materials under fire, dependent on a massive conventional force protection footprint that would itself represent the first major U.S. ground commitment in Iran—the scenario Trump’s 2016 and 2024 campaigns were predicated on avoiding. Secretary of State Rubio’s statement that “people are going to have to go and get it” may be the most consequential understatement of the current war. What Rubio is describing is not a special operations raid. It is a combined-arms ground campaign against a state military, conducted inside a tunnel system, with radiological and chemical hazards, against an adversary that has trained and fortified for precisely this contingency and is being driven toward the most extreme nuclear posture in its history by the very campaign that was supposed to prevent it.

(U) SECTION VI — KNOWN UNKNOWNS

The intelligence gaps on this question are severe and bear enumeration, because the confidence with which senior administration officials have made claims about Iran’s nuclear status is inversely proportional to the information actually available.

First, the exact location and distribution of the enriched uranium. The IAEA’s last verified accounting places slightly over 200 kilograms at Isfahan, with additional material at Natanz and elsewhere—but the agency has not inspected any site since June 2025 and cannot verify current quantities or locations. The remaining approximately 240 kilograms is unaccounted for in the public record.

Second, whether Iran has established enrichment capability at Pickaxe Mountain or any other undeclared facility. Satellite imagery shows construction activity, but ground truth is unavailable. The IAEA has been refused any information about the site.

Third, the status of Iran’s weaponization program. The reported October 2025 Khamenei authorization of miniaturized warhead development has not been independently confirmed. The U.S. Intelligence Community’s 2025 assessment that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon predates the killing of Khamenei and the IRGC’s subsequent political dominance.

Fourth, the actual condition of UF₆ cylinders at Isfahan, Fordow, and Natanz. Any damage to these containers from the strikes themselves—whether from blast effects, structural collapse, or seismic shock—could have already created a localized contamination event that no one has inspected.

Fifth, the extent and sophistication of Iran’s dummy container program. If Perkovich’s assessment is correct, any ground operation faces a needle-in-a-haystack problem that could extend mission timelines from days to weeks.

These gaps are not peripheral uncertainties. They are the core of the question. Any policy built on confident assertions about the status of Iran’s enriched uranium is built on sand.

The following scenarios represent plausible developments outside the current analytical frame that could fundamentally alter the assessment:

(U) SECTION VII — IMPLICATIONS FOR DECISION SPACE

If this reading is right, three things must be monitored, prioritized, or reconsidered now, before they become obvious.

First, the Pickaxe Mountain timeline is the most consequential intelligence requirement. If Iran establishes enrichment capability at a facility deeper than any the United States can strike, the military option that underwrote both campaigns is permanently foreclosed. This is not a future risk—construction is underway. Every week of delay in addressing this facility narrows the window of viable response.

Second, the CWMD mission planning must be subjected to ruthless realism. The public discussion of a special operations raid to “go and get” Iran’s enriched uranium treats a combined-arms ground campaign as though it were a targeted kill-or-capture mission. The force protection requirements, the UF₆ handling hazards, the IRGC’s prepared defenses, the dummy container problem, and the multi-week timeline required for thorough material accountability make this qualitatively different from any prior CWMD operation. If this mission is ordered without adequate conventional support, it will fail—and the failure will be measured in American casualties inside Iranian tunnel systems.

Third, the diplomatic track must be evaluated against the baseline the JCPOA established, not against the current crisis conditions that the JCPOA’s abandonment created. The 15-point proposal demanding Iran dismantle its nuclear program, end enrichment, hand over its entire stockpile, limit missiles, cease support for proxy forces, and ensure Strait of Hormuz navigation is, as Iran’s foreign ministry noted, maximalist. It demands more than the JCPOA achieved at a moment when U.S. leverage has been substantially degraded—not enhanced—by two military campaigns that failed to achieve their stated objective. The question is not whether Iran will accept these terms (it will not) but whether the United States can find terms that are both achievable and adequate before the IRGC-dominated political establishment crosses the weaponization threshold.

(U) SECTION VIII — PRE-MORTEM

The single most likely way this assessment is wrong: the Isfahan tunnel complex is more damaged than current evidence suggests, the enriched uranium inside has been rendered inaccessible or degraded to the point of non-utility even for Iran, and Pickaxe Mountain’s construction timeline is slower than satellite imagery implies. Under this scenario, the two military campaigns have succeeded in creating a de facto denial of access that, combined with the destruction of centrifuge infrastructure, produces a meaningful multi-year delay in Iran’s ability to weaponize—roughly consistent with the Pentagon’s optimistic two-year assessment. The evidence that would confirm this: IAEA access to Isfahan and Fordow revealing damaged or empty storage chambers, verified absence of UF₆ cylinders at Pickaxe Mountain, and a slowing of construction at the site. None of these indicators are currently present.

(U) SECTION IX — BIAS REGISTER

The following biases from the NSD Military Bias Catalogue were checked against this product:

(U) ANALYTICAL JUDGMENT

The inspection regime that once constrained Iran’s nuclear program was abandoned in 2018. The bombs were supposed to replace it. They didn’t. Two military campaigns and eight years of maximum pressure have produced a scattered, partially inaccessible stockpile sufficient for ten nuclear weapons, a fortified replacement facility deeper than any weapon can reach, an Iranian political establishment openly debating weaponization for the first time in its history, and an intelligence community that has lost the ability to verify any of it. The policy trajectory from the JCPOA withdrawal to the present is a compounding failure in which each escalatory step has narrowed the available options while expanding the threat. The ground mission now being discussed as the last resort is itself the product of that narrowing — the kinetic substitute for the diplomatic access that was discarded as insufficient. It was not insufficient. It was the only tool that worked.

The National Security Desk offers these posts freely, but your support is necessary and appreciated. Please subscribe, paid if you’re able, or leave a tip.

Subscribe now

Thank you

Leave a tip!

Share

Leave a comment

(U) REFERENCES

1. IAEA quarterly reports, June and November 2025; Reuters, “Much of Iran’s near-bomb-grade uranium likely to be in Isfahan, IAEA’s Grossi says,” 9 March 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/much-irans-near-bomb-grade-uranium-likely-be-isfahan-iaeas-grossi-says-2026-03-09/

2. Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “Iran’s Stockpile of Highly Enriched Uranium: Worth Bargaining For?” March 2026. https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enriched-uranium-worth-bargaining-for/

3. CNN, “Trump said Iran’s nuclear program was ‘obliterated.’ So why is he looking to strike again?” 24 February 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/24/politics/nuclear-program-iran-trump-strike; Wikipedia, “2025 United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_strikes_on_Iranian_nuclear_sites

4. New York Post, “Some enriched uranium survived US strikes on Iran nuclear sites, is still accessible: senior Israeli official,” 10 July 2025. https://nypost.com/2025/07/10/world-news/some-enriched-uranium-survived-us-strikes-on-iran-nuclear-sites-is-still-accessible-senior-israeli-official/; JNS, “Iranian media: Uranium moved from Fordow pre-strike.” https://www.jns.org/israel-news/iranian-media-uranium-moved-from-fordow-pre-strike

5. Reuters, “Explainer: What is the status of Iran’s main nuclear facilities?” 16 January 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/what-is-status-irans-main-nuclear-facilities-2026-01-16/; Reuters, “Much of Iran’s near-bomb-grade uranium likely to be in Isfahan,” 9 March 2026.

6. ISIS, “All Entrances to Esfahan Tunnel Complex are Now Completely Buried,” February 2026. https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/imagery-update-all-entrances-to-esfahan-tunnel-complex-are-now-completely-buried; Al Jazeera, “IAEA urges Iran to allow inspections, points at Isfahan,” 27 February 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/27/iaea-eyes-isfahan-nuclear-complex-as-it-urges-iran-to-allow

7. JNS, “Where is Iran’s enriched uranium now?” https://www.jns.org/analysis/where-is-irans-enriched-uranium-now; FDD analysis cited in multiple reporting.

8. ABC News Australia, “Iran’s mysterious Pickaxe Mountain a ‘candidate’ for new nuclear site,” 7 February 2026. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-07/iran-nuclear-sites-program-us-strikes-pickaxe-mountain-uranium/106288446; BBC, “Iran fortifies underground complex near nuclear site,” 2026. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwygxz81330o; FDD, “Trump Points to Iran’s Resumption of Nuclear Activities at a New, Deeper Site,” 11 March 2026. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/policy_briefs/2026/03/11/trump-points-to-irans-resumption-of-nuclear-activities-at-a-new-deeper-site/

9. JFeed, “Dummy Decoys and Radioactive Fallout: The Risks of a Commando Raid.” https://www.jfeed.com/news-world/iran-nuclear-raid-risks

10. SOF Support, “Loose Nukes in Iran Is a Scenario U.S. Special Operators Have Been Training For.” https://sofsupport.org/loose-nukes-in-iran-is-a-scenario-u-s-special-operators-have-been-training-for/; GTI Training, “The Pentagon’s Secret Plans to Secure Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal.” https://gtitraining.org/news_111911.htm

11. Sandboxx, “Could Delta Force retrieve Iran’s nuclear material?” https://www.sandboxx.us/news/could-delta-force-retrieve-irans-nuclear-material/; The War Zone, “America’s Elite Special Operators Want A Huge Mock Enemy Bunker Complex To Train In.” https://www.twz.com/32209/americas-most-elite-special-operators-want-a-huge-mock-enemy-bunker-complex-to-train-in

12. The War Zone, “Commando Raid To Secure Iran’s Enriched Uranium May Become A Very Risky Necessity.” https://www.twz.com/nuclear/special-operations-raid-to-secure-irans-enriched-uranium-may-become-a-very-risky-necessity

13. CNN, “Capturing Iran’s highly enriched uranium would require a large US ground force, sources say,” 9 March 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/09/politics/iran-uranium-us-ground-forces-nuclear

14. New York Times, “I Spent Two Decades Securing Nuclear Materials. Getting at Iran’s Would Not Be Easy,” 20 March 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/20/opinion/iran-nuclear-materials-war.html; Stars and Stripes, “US forces may need to secure uranium in Iran, analysts say,” 8 March 2026. https://www.stripes.com/theaters/middle_east/2026-03-08/boots-on-the-ground-analysts-20994225.html

15. Anadolu Agency, “US reportedly weighing special forces mission to secure Iran’s enriched uranium.” https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/us-reportedly-weighing-special-forces-mission-to-secure-iran-s-enriched-uranium/3855102

16. CBS News/YouTube, “Why seizing Iran’s nuclear material would be ‘one of the riskiest’ operations.”

Economic Times, “The mission that could end the Iran war?” https://economictimes.com/news/international/us/trump-iran-war-nuclear-commando-mission/articleshow/129656911.cms

17. Defense Security Monitor, “With GBU-57s, U.S. Finally Deploys Weapon Designed Specifically for Iran’s Hardened Nuclear Sites,” 23 June 2025. https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2025/06/23/with-gbu-57s-u-s-finally-deploys-weapon-designed-specifically-for-irans-hardened-nuclear-sites/; The War Zone, “New GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator Parts Reverse Engineered From ATACMS Ballistic Missile Tech,” 16 February 2026. https://www.twz.com/air/new-gbu-57-massive-ordnance-penetrator-parts-reverse-engineered-from-atacms-ballistic-missile-tech; Defense Express, “U.S. Hits Iranian Nuclear Sites with 14 GBU-57 Bombs: How Many Are in Stock, and How Fast Are They Made?” 23 June 2025. https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/us_hits_iranian_nuclear_sites_with_14_gbu_57_bombs_how_many_are_in_stock_and_how_fast_are_they_made-14927.html

18. Reuters, “Iran hardliners ramp up calls for a nuclear bomb, sources say,” 26 March 2026. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/iran-hardliners-ramp-up-calls-nuclear-bomb-sources-say-2026-03-26/; Al Jazeera, “As war rages, Iranian politicians push for exit from nuclear weapons treaty,” 28 March 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/28/lawmakers-push-npt-exit-as-us-israel-hit-irans-nuclear-sites-steel-plants

19. Reuters (ibid.); Times of Israel, “Amid war, Iranian hardliners ramp up once-taboo calls to seek nuclear bomb,” 26 March 2026. https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-war-iranian-hardliners-ramp-up-once-taboo-calls-to-seek-nuclear-bomb/

20. Axios, “Iran’s uranium stockpile: What to know as the conflict escalates,” 3 March 2026. https://www.axios.com/2026/03/03/iran-uranium-stockpiles-israel-us-strikes; World Nuclear Association, “Nuclear Power in Iran,” updated March 2026. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/iran

WASHINGTON DC — 17 MAR 2026

Good morning from NSD Headquarters.

We’re pleased to announce two new FREE services now available to National Security Desk readers across all platforms.

1. NSD Daily SITREP (Situation Report)

Your personal open‑source Presidential Daily Brief. Global crises distilled with the same analytic discipline used at the highest levels of government—because NSD worked at that level. This isn’t branding; it’s tradecraft adapted for open‑source readers who need signal, not noise.

2. NSD Podcasts

Each morning, a concise audio edition of the SITREP for your commute. Periodically, we release long‑form conversations that unpack NSD analytic products in plain language—designed for non‑experts without sacrificing rigor.

These are two separate Substack platforms. To receive either product directly in your inbox each day, you must subscribe to each individually.

As always, the National Security Desk publishes its work freely. Your support keeps this project independent and reader‑funded. If NSD adds value to your understanding of the world, please consider subscribing—paid if you’re able—or leaving a tip. It genuinely helps us continue this work.

COMPLETE NSD LINE UP

The new services deliver curated raw intelligence. The four main Substacks provide NSD’s independent, thorough intelligence assessments. If you want the full NSD picture—not just fragments—make sure you’re subscribed to everything that fits your needs. Here’s the complete roster.

NSD Podcasts

Podcast discussions of NSD publications

By The National Security Desk

NSD SITREP

NSD - ALERT // Breaking signals // // Key drivers // // The Sitrep is NSD's curated OSINT aggregator // // Subscribe to get the signal before the assessment //

By The National Security Desk

Military Innovation Lab

How Does the World's Largest Bureaucracy Overcome Inertia?

By The National Security Desk

Unconventional Nuclear Warfare

Things USSTRATCOM has not planned for

By The National Security Desk

The Third Offset Strategy

The Future of War With China

By The National Security Desk

Civil War II

From insurrection to insurgency

By The National Security Desk

Leave a tip!

Leave a comment

Share

Leave a comment

Prologue

(U) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

France has crossed a threshold that the rest of the world has not yet registered. The speech delivered at Île Longue on 2 March 2026 was not a deterrence posture update—it was the articulation of a new European nuclear architecture, one built around French sovereignty and designed to function with or without American participation. Macron announced a warhead increase, ended the practice of publishing arsenal numbers, introduced the concept of forward deterrence through an ‘archipelago of forces’ dispersed across allied territory, and formalised structured nuclear dialogue with seven European partner states. The trigger was Washington: Trump’s attempt to strip the United States from the SACEUR position—the structural hinge of NATO’s entire tactical nuclear architecture—forced Macron’s hand. Taken together, these moves constitute the most significant restructuring of European nuclear affairs since de Gaulle withdrew France from NATO’s integrated military command in 1966. The difference is that de Gaulle was protecting French sovereignty from the alliance. Macron is now offering French sovereignty to save it.

Three structural realities now converge to make French nuclear leadership not a matter of preference but of necessity. First, U.S. extended deterrence is mechanically brittle: the B61 nuclear-sharing mission collapses if SACEUR ceases to be American, and the strategic triad bypasses NATO entirely. General Christopher Cavoli, as SACEUR, testified to Congress in 2025 that he would “pass the weapons under his command as the head of EUCOM to himself to use as SACEUR.” That single sentence is the entire architecture of NATO’s tactical nuclear deterrent—a self-transfer that functions only as long as an American four-star simultaneously wears both hats. Remove the American, and the mechanism has no operator. Admiral James Stavridis, who held that dual-hat position from 2009 to 2013, called any move to surrender the SACEUR role “probably the first step toward leaving the Alliance altogether.” Second, the UK deterrent is sovereign at the trigger and dependent below it—unable to sustain full operational effectiveness through a prolonged estrangement from Washington. Third, European public opinion has shifted so decisively against the United States that the political prerequisite for trusting American guarantees has eroded in precisely the states whose defence they are meant to underwrite. Only France possesses a fully sovereign arsenal, an independent command-and-control chain, and the political will to use both.

NSD assesses it as highly likely—with high confidence—that Macron’s forward deterrence framework will crystallise into a de facto Franco-European nuclear council within the next eighteen to thirty-six months, with front-line states tying their high-end conventional and early-warning investments to the French deterrent while explicitly accepting that final nuclear authority remains in Paris. The analysis below stress-tests that thesis, surfaces four significant vulnerabilities the mainstream commentary has missed, presents three competing hypotheses for Macron’s actual strategic intent, and identifies the decision space now narrowing for both European and American policymakers.

(U) I. OBSERVED FACTS — WHAT WE KNOW

Macron moves from ‘European dimension’ to operational doctrine

In March 2025, Macron used a wartime address—one NSD compared to Churchill—to state that Europe must be ready to defend itself ‘if’ the United States is not at its side and that Europe has the economic strength to ‘take on the United States of America and Russia.’ He told France directly: “I want to believe that the United States will remain at our side, but we must be ready if this is not the case.” He explicitly offered to ‘open the strategic debate’ on extending France’s deterrent to continental allies—language that, in nuclear diplomacy, carries the weight of policy.

In March 2026, at the Île Longue SSBN base—France’s most operationally sensitive nuclear site—he converted rhetoric into operational doctrine in four concrete moves:

1. Announced an increase in French warheads and ended publication of arsenal numbers ‘to put an end to any speculation’—expanding strategic ambiguity deliberately.

2. Introduced forward deterrence: dispersal of French strategic air forces across allied territory as an ‘archipelago of forces’ and temporary deployment of nuclear-capable Rafale aircraft deep into European allied territory beyond France’s borders.

3. Formalised structured nuclear dialogue and cooperation with a first wave of seven partners—Germany, Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden, Denmark—who have agreed to site visits, exercises, and deeper coordination.

4. Maintained sole French presidential authority over any nuclear use, including a one-time non-repeatable warning shot designed to restore deterrence—explicitly refusing to share the decision.

The fourteen-month signaling ladder: NSD prior analysis (NUKES-2026-002)

NSD’s prior assessment (NUKES-2026-002) documented that Macron constructed a deliberate fourteen-month nuclear signaling ladder between January 2025 and March 2026, calibrated to—and arguably contributing to—Trump’s reversal on Greenland.

The sequence: (1) the February 2025 Munich speech opening nuclear deterrence debate; (2) the March 2025 address explicitly naming America as a potential adversary; (3) targeted diplomatic outreach to Baltic and Nordic states on forward basing; (4) the JEWEL early-warning programme announcement; (5) the Île Longue operational declaration. Each rung was timed to coincide with a Trump escalation or withdrawal signal. The cumulative effect was to demonstrate to Washington that European strategic autonomy was not aspirational—it was underway.

NSD assessed this ladder as likely contributing to the Greenland reversal—not by deterring Trump directly, but by demonstrating to the U.S. national security establishment that continued pressure on Denmark would accelerate NATO’s Europeanisation faster than Washington could manage.^[1]

France is fully sovereign; the UK is sovereign at the trigger and dependent below it

France’s deterrent remains structurally independent at every level. It controls its own warheads, delivery systems (M51.3 SLBMs aboard Triomphant-class SSBNs; ASMP-A air-launched cruise missiles on Rafale, with the hypersonic ASN4G successor in development), NC2 chain, and its nuclear industrial base through the CEA and Naval Group.

NSD’s UK assessment found that Britain is ‘sovereign at the moment of use, dependent in everything else.’ The Prime Minister can order Trident use without a U.S. legal veto. But UK Trident missiles come from a U.S.-UK pool at Kings Bay; the warheads’ Arming/Fuzing/Firing system and the authorisation architecture are designed and procured via U.S. contracts. NSD judges that while the UK can fire once without U.S. permission, it cannot maintain full operational effectiveness over a multi-year period of deep estrangement from Washington.^[2]

NATO command is being Europeanised; U.S. nuclear architecture is brittle

NATO has removed the United States from all three four-star operational-level Joint Force Commands—Norfolk, Naples, Brunssum—placing them under British, Italian, German and Polish leadership. SACEUR remains American, but NSD has noted this is a question of timing. Today’s move makes a European SACEUR ‘not a hypothetical, but an inevitability.’

The B61 nuclear-sharing mission relies on an American SACEUR ‘self-transferring’ weapons from his U.S. hat (EUCOM) to his NATO hat; a European SACEUR does not hold U.S. PAL codes and cannot perform this function. Lt-General Sean Bernabe, former Deputy Commanding General of U.S. Army Europe, underscored the conventional side of this same hinge: the SACEUR holds standing authority to deploy forces for immediate self-defense, alert and stage high-readiness units, adjust air policing and maritime patrols, and—critically—move U.S. forces under national command in his EUCOM hat before the North Atlantic Council reaches consensus. That is the rapid-reaction shock absorber in the first 72 hours of a crisis. Take the American out of SACEUR, and you lose both the nuclear self-transfer and the conventional shock absorber simultaneously.^[3]

Strategic U.S. nuclear use (ICBMs, SLBMs, bombers) bypasses NATO entirely, running straight from the President through the National Military Command Center to STRATCOM; SACEUR is outside that chain even in an Article V scenario. NATO’s tactical nuclear layer is structurally designed around an American SACEUR, while its strategic layer is completely nationalised and unilateral. The alliance’s deterrent posture therefore rests on two parallel systems that can only converge in one man’s hands—and that man must be American.

Civil War II

UK, Germany Rebrand US as "Enemy"

WASHINGTON DC 9FEB2025…

Read more

4 months ago · 15 likes · The National Security Desk

European opinion: the U.S. as threat, Trump as Putin’s peer

Polling shows pluralities in Britain (49%) and Germany (46%) classifying the United States itself as an ‘enemy’ or ‘competitor,’ with significant shares in France, Denmark, Spain and Sweden doing the same. Majorities in every surveyed Western European nation hold unfavourable views of the U.S., with negative sentiment reaching 84% in Denmark and 72% in Germany after the Greenland crisis and tariff wars. Trump personally is viewed as a ‘threat to peace and security’ across Europe, trailing Putin by only single-digit margins in most polling, with Denmark’s net unfavourability for Trump effectively matching that of the Russian dictator.

EU INTCEN now lists ‘U.S. hostility toward Europe’ as a pre-eminent risk, noting that potential U.S. withdrawal from security guarantees has strategic effects ‘equivalent to the use of a nuclear weapon by Russia.’ That sentence—from a European intelligence coordination body, not a polemicist—represents the formalisation of a perception that was unthinkable as recently as 2022. It is the sentence that explains every other move in this document.^[4]

(U) II. STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS — WHAT ACTORS CAN AND CANNOT DO

Europe’s geography ties French survival to German survival

Europe’s small physical size and deep economic integration make large wars contagious. A Russian offensive that overruns the Baltics and Poland and devastates Germany would detonate the economic and political core of the EU. Germany’s collapse would shatter the eurozone, wreck French export markets, and destabilise French public finances.

In practice, French ‘vital interests’ cannot be confined to French borders. German survival, Baltic sovereignty and Nordic territorial integrity now sit inside France’s vital space whether Paris admits it publicly or not. A France that ‘saves itself’ while Germany and its eastern flank burn would be preserving sovereignty in a vacuum. De Gaulle understood this sixty years ago: in 1964, he stated that France would consider itself threatened if the Soviet Union attacked Germany. Macron is not inventing a new doctrine—he is finally making explicit what French strategic planners have known since the Cold War: that the destruction of Germany is the destruction of France by any other means.

The ASN4G transition window: France’s hidden vulnerability

This matters for forward deterrence because Macron’s ‘archipelago of forces’ concept relies specifically on nuclear-capable Rafale aircraft deploying across European allied territory with ASMP-A. That is the deterrence instrument France is offering its partners. Its credibility is tied directly to the aging airborne-leg timeline.^[5]

NPT Article I/II complications with forward deployment

France is an NPT-recognised nuclear weapons state under Article IX. However, the deployment of French nuclear-capable aircraft and assets to German, Polish, Dutch, or Belgian territory raises Article I and II questions that have not been publicly resolved.

Article I prohibits nuclear weapons states from transferring ‘nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices’ or ‘control’ over them to non-nuclear weapons states. Article II prohibits non-nuclear weapons states from receiving them. The existing U.S.-NATO nuclear sharing arrangement operates under ‘peacetime custody and use’ protocols that have never been formally adjudicated under the NPT. A French equivalent arrangement would face the same legal ambiguity—with Moscow virtually certain to exploit it diplomatically to delegitimise French deterrence and pressure partner states.^[6]

France’s SSBN patrol posture: real but thin

France operates four Triomphant-class SSBNs and maintains one on continuous deterrence patrol at all times—permanence de la posture de dissuasion. A second boat is typically at short-notice readiness. Two are in maintenance or refit at any given time. This means France’s survivable second-strike capability is real but thin compared to the U.S. Ohio-class fleet of fourteen SSBNs. A warhead increase expands the payload per boat but does not add hulls. Expanding deterrence coverage to seven additional European partners does not change the patrol rotation; it increases the political and strategic demands placed on the same physical platform.^[7]

U.S. behaviour makes the old bargain untenable; European reaction is underway

Trump’s circle treats NATO as a shakedown operation rather than a mutual defence pact. They demand 5% of GDP as quasi-tribute, publicly threaten to abandon Article V, mount hybrid campaigns against European democracies mirroring Russian tactics, and coordinate narratives with Moscow about ‘globalism,’ Greenland, and Ukraine. They have launched an Iran war that depends on European basing and overflight without meaningful European control over objectives or exit conditions.

Front-line states are already moving. Poland, the Baltics, and the Nordics are approaching or exceeding 3–5% defence spending. Germany has overturned its debt brake and committed to a massive rearmament programme. National intelligence services in Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK have curtailed or compartmented sensitive sharing with U.S. agencies. The institutional momentum is unambiguous.

(U) III. EMERGING PATTERNS AND WEAK SIGNALS

The partner-state selection is not random

The seven states Macron named—Germany, Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden, Denmark—form a pattern that the mainstream commentary has not adequately explained. Germany’s Chancellor-elect Friedrich Merz, even before taking office, asked publicly whether British and French “nuclear protection could also be extended to us”—the first time a German leader had raised the question of direct nuclear coverage since Helmut Kohl. Merz also announced that “Germany is back,” abolishing the constitutional debt brake to fund trillion-euro rearmament, making Germany not a passive beneficiary of French deterrence but its indispensable conventional enabler. Against that backdrop, Macron’s partner selection is not diplomatic courtesy—it is a deterrence architecture. Consider the internal logic:

1. Netherlands and Belgium currently host U.S. B61 nuclear gravity bombs under the NATO nuclear sharing arrangement. Their inclusion in France’s dialogue is not coincidental—it signals a deliberate intent to offer an alternative nuclear anchor to states whose current arrangement depends on the American SACEUR remaining American.

2. Poland and the Baltic-adjacent posture of Sweden represent the eastern deterrence frontier where Russian conventional superiority is most acute and where extended deterrence credibility matters most operationally.

3. Denmark was the direct object of Trump’s Greenland coercion. Including Copenhagen signals that French deterrence explicitly extends to the scenario where the threat to allied territory originates from Washington, not Moscow.

4. Greece is the outlier. Its inclusion likely reflects the emerging French-led eastern Mediterranean security architecture, the SAMP/T NG air defence acquisition, and France’s broader effort to shift NATO’s southern flank away from Turkish-American friction.

Read as a group, the seven states represent the nodes of a new deterrence network that could function independently of both the U.S. B61 mission and the British contribution. That is either visionary architecture or premature overreach—the hypothesis section addresses which is more likely.

JEWEL and ELSA: the conventional ecosystem beneath the nuclear umbrella

Macron has tied forward deterrence explicitly to three capability programmes that rarely appear in the same sentence as nuclear doctrine: JEWEL (a Franco-European space-based early-warning and missile detection system), SAMP/T NG (next-generation ground-based air and missile defence, already being acquired by Denmark and Ukraine), and ELSA (a long-range precision strike missile under joint development with Germany and the UK).

These are not coincidental. They represent the conventional-sensor-strike ecosystem without which nuclear deterrence in a complex crisis becomes a blunt instrument. A credible nuclear guarantee requires the ability to detect first strikes early, defend against conventional and missile attack, and hold adversary conventional forces at risk with deep-strike capability. France is building all three—and billing the cost to its partners through co-development arrangements.

Warning shot doctrine: elegant in theory, fragile in crisis

Macron’s insistence on a single, non-repeatable warning shot as the bridge between conventional and strategic nuclear use is the most analytically distinctive element of French doctrine. It is designed to preserve the firebreak—no tactical nuclear warfighting, no graduated escalation ladder—while providing a demonstrative step that does not immediately commit to city-killing strikes.

The fragility lies in the adversary’s interpretation problem. A warning shot only deters if the adversary believes two things simultaneously: first, that France is willing to take the irreversible step of nuclear use; second, that the warning shot will not be followed by a second strike if ignored. If Russia judges the warning shot to be France’s maximum—a signal of desperation rather than resolve—it may call the bluff. If France then does not fire again, French deterrence collapses. If France does fire again, it has crossed into the strategic exchange the doctrine was meant to avoid. NSD does not judge this doctrine incoherent—it is a serious attempt to manage the first-use paradox. But coherence and credibility are not the same thing. A deterrent that requires an adversary to correctly interpret a single, unrepeatable act—under conditions of maximum stress and political pressure—is a deterrent resting enormous weight on a very thin wire. Putin’s Russia has shown no evidence that it shares France’s analytical framework about the meaning of nuclear signals. That gap is not a footnote to French doctrine. It is its central unresolved problem.

NSD does not judge this doctrine to be incoherent—it is a serious attempt to manage the first-use paradox. The analysis above covers the full problem set.

(U) IV. ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES

Per NSD analytical standards, we present three hypotheses. We assess their probability explicitly. The dominant commentary operates entirely within the frame of Hypothesis 1 without testing the alternatives.

Hypothesis 1 (Most Likely): Genuine structural architecture

France is constructing a real European deterrence architecture driven by Macron’s clear-eyed assessment that U.S. extended deterrence is collapsing and that only France can fill the gap. The partner selection, the capability ecosystem (JEWEL, SAMP/T, ELSA), the institutional dialogue, and the warhead increase are all consistent with a leader who has concluded that the window for action is open and will not remain open indefinitely.

NSD probability assessment: Highly likely (high confidence). The behavioral, capability, and institutional evidence all point in the same direction. The cost-benefit calculation for Macron is sound: France acquires allied conventional investment that strengthens its own deterrence ecosystem at the price of political commitment it was already making unilaterally.

Hypothesis 2 (Plausible): Domestic political and legacy play

Macron is in the twilight of his presidency with declining domestic approval. The security crisis created by Trump and the war in Ukraine gives him a historic opportunity to redefine his legacy as the leader who saved European security. The nuclear architecture announcement is real in its intent but optimistic in its execution—Macron is overpromising on what France can deliver and betting that the institutional momentum will outlast his administration.

NSD probability assessment: Plausible (medium confidence). H2 is not inconsistent with H1—leaders can simultaneously pursue genuine strategic goals and personal legacy. The key indicator is whether institutionalisation follows the rhetoric on a twelve-to-eighteen-month timeline.

Hypothesis 3 (Elite-Disfavoured): Industrial-strategic extraction

France is using the European deterrence offer to extract maximum conventional defence investment from partners into French-led programmes, creating a French-centred defence industrial ecosystem that serves French economic interests as much as European security. ELSA, JEWEL, and SAMP/T NG are all French or French-led programmes; partner states finance French industrial capacity under the label of collective security.

NSD probability assessment: Possible but unlikely as the primary driver (low-medium confidence). H3 better describes a secondary benefit than a primary motive. France’s security concerns are genuine; the industrial structuring is a feature, not the foundation.

(U) V. MOST LIKELY ASSESSMENT — WHAT WE THINK

1. French doctrine already treats German survival as a French vital interest

Macron’s speech stops just short of saying ‘Germany is a French vital interest,’ but his framing and the structural realities make that conclusion unavoidable. He asks whether France could consider the survival of its closest partners at risk ‘without it affecting our vital interests,’ and he explicitly asserts a European dimension to those interests. Given the economic, political and institutional fusion between France and Germany, and the catastrophic consequences of German collapse, NSD assesses:

[ASSESSED] It is highly likely (high confidence) that any large-scale Russian offensive that genuinely threatens German survival would be treated in Paris’ internal doctrine as an encroachment on French vital interests, triggering nuclear signalling and potentially nuclear use. Forward deterrence is not a favour France grants; it is the alignment of doctrine with a reality in which preventing German destruction is part of defending France itself.

2. Forward deterrence doubles as a burden-sharing compact—but France controls the terms

Macron builds a nuclear-conventional bargain into forward deterrence without using NATO’s burden-sharing language. Partners gain the political and operational signal that their territory is tied into French deterrence via deployments, exercises, and a visible ‘archipelago’ of nuclear-capable assets. France gains something it cannot purchase unilaterally: strategic depth. German rearmament extends the conventional buffer. Polish and Baltic defence investment provides the tripwire and forward sensing. Nordic integration covers the Atlantic and Arctic flanks. Collectively, partners buy France more time before any nuclear decision would have to be made—which is precisely what a deterrent of two hundred warheads needs most.

[ASSESSED] It is likely (high confidence) that this will crystallise into a de facto Franco-European nuclear council within eighteen to thirty-six months. The specific composition—France, Germany, UK, Poland, Sweden, Finland, and at least one Baltic state—will be less important than the institutional architecture: permanent front-line members, structured crisis consultation procedures, and an explicitly codified default to French discretion in extremis, with high-end conventional and NC3 investments tied to the French deterrent. The decisive indicator to watch is whether Germany tables a Bundestag resolution authorising French nuclear-capable aircraft deployments to German soil before the end of 2026. If it does, the council is real. If it does not, the architecture remains aspirational.

There is agreement in principle and a formal Franco‑German steering group, but no Bundestag resolution authorising French nuclear‑capable aircraft on German soil has been passed yet. Macron and Merz’s 2 March 2026 joint declaration creates a “high‑ranking nuclear steering group” and commits Germany to participate in French nuclear exercises, visit strategic sites, and co‑develop conventional capabilities tied to deterrence. The cooperation explicitly contemplates “temporary deployment of strategic assets among our allies,” including French nuclear‑capable aircraft landing on allied territory “including in Germany,” but only as a possibility within an “advanced deterrence” framework, not as a parliamentary mandate. German reporting and committee reactions still describe preliminary discussions, a high‑level steering group, and concrete but conventional steps; there is, as yet, no specific Bundestag resolution tabled or adopted to authorise deployments of French nuclear‑armed Rafales.

[ASSESSED] France has designed this arrangement so that it cannot be vetoed by any partner state, only joined or not joined. The architecture is adhesive: once Germany co-produces ELSA and accepts French early-warning architecture, walking back from French nuclear leadership becomes economically and strategically prohibitive.

NSD’s conservative estimate places the implicit value of Europe as a U.S. basing and enabling platform since 1991 at roughly 40 billion USD per year, cumulating to approximately 1.4 trillion dollars. That figure can be weaponised in narrative and negotiation. It demolishes the argument that Europe ‘owes’ the U.S. because of the Marshall Plan—the plan was mostly grants, the loan components were small, restructured, and fully repaid by the early 1970s, with much of the money returning to U.S. industry. It reframes Trump’s 5% GDP demand as grotesque inversion: the real open account runs the other way.

NSD assesses that explicit public use of this surcharge—not merely in private demarches but in coordinated European political messaging—would significantly stiffen European political backs. The simple rejoinder: there is no such thing as free basing, and the party that has been riding free is not us.^[8]

4. F-NATO is already operational; the question is how explicit Europe makes it

[ASSESSED] It is highly likely (high confidence) that FNATO—a Free NATO in which the treaty framework persists but American centrality does not—is already the operational reality at the warfighting level, given the Europeanisation of all JFCs. The question is no longer whether this transition occurs but how deliberately Europe manages it.

[ASSESSED] It is plausible (medium confidence) that, if Trump continues treating Europe as an adversary while relying on its soil, a Franco-European bloc will escalate from quiet constraints to an explicit ultimatum: end cognitive and hybrid warfare against European democracies; stop aligning with Russian aims; accept European nuclear leadership and a rebalanced command structure. Otherwise, Europe will replace SACEUR with a European commander, heavily tax or close major U.S. bases, and route nuclear planning entirely through a French-led framework.

(U) VI. INTELLIGENCE GAPS — WHAT WE DON’T KNOW

The following represent the primary analytical unknowns. Their resolution would most significantly change NSD’s assessment.

[UNKNOWN] Actual warhead count and production timeline. France has deliberately ended publication of arsenal figures. The announced increase could range from marginal (280 to 310) to substantial (toward the UK’s ~225 or beyond). Without knowing CEA’s production tempo, we cannot assess how quickly the warhead increase materialises or whether it is primarily a signalling move.

[UNKNOWN] Nature of partner agreements. Whether the seven-nation dialogue has produced pre-positioned asset agreements, exercises-only arrangements, or structured crisis consultation protocols is not publicly known. The difference matters enormously: pre-positioning changes the deterrence geometry; exercises-only is largely political optics.

[UNKNOWN] Germany’s constitutional tolerance for French nuclear presence. Germany’s Basic Law and its post-war strategic culture create legal and political constraints that French planners may be underestimating. Whether the Bundestag would authorise French nuclear-capable aircraft deployments to German soil under a bilateral rather than NATO framework has never been tested.

[UNKNOWN] Russia’s private assessment of French credibility. Moscow’s public response to Macron’s speech has been dismissive. Whether Russian military planners are updating their European deterrence models to treat France as a genuine deterrence actor—rather than a political posturing exercise—is the operationally decisive question that open-source analysis cannot answer.

[UNKNOWN] ASN4G classified schedule. The 2035 IOC estimate is based on public contract timelines. If the programme is ahead of schedule, the airborne-leg vulnerability window narrows significantly. If it is behind—which is common for hypersonic systems—the window widens.

(U) VII. IMPLICATIONS FOR DECISION SPACE

For European decision-makers: the risk is not overreach but under-institutionalisation

The risk is not that France will overreach; it is that Europe will fail to build fast enough around what France is now offering. If this anticipatory reading is right, European leaders should act on three fronts now, not in the next crisis:

1. Lock in a Franco-European nuclear council with permanent front-line members, structured crisis procedures, and an explicitly codified default to French discretion in extremis. The council’s existence changes the deterrence calculus before it is ever activated.

2. Tie key conventional programmes—JEWEL early warning, SAMP/T NG air defence deployments, ELSA long-range strike development—to the new framework, not to NATO’s U.S.-centric machinery. This creates institutional gravity that makes the council self-reinforcing.

3. Resolve the German constitutional question now, under conditions of deliberation, not under crisis pressure. A Bundestag debate on whether French nuclear-capable aircraft can deploy to German territory—with a legal framework that addresses NPT obligations—undertaken in the next twelve months is infinitely preferable to the same debate conducted while Russian forces are on the Oder.

4. Prepare a written FNATO playbook: pre-authorised legal and political steps for constraining U.S. base use in crises, clear thresholds for demanding a European SACEUR, and a coordinated rent-and-access negotiating position. The leverage exists; it needs institutional form before it can be exercised under pressure.

For U.S. decision-makers: the window for influence is closing

If anyone in Washington still cares about preserving U.S. influence in Europe, the signal is straightforward and deteriorating with each passing month.

[ASSESSED] U.S. extended deterrence is no longer a one-way favour. Europe can now defend itself conventionally and, via French deterrence, deter nuclear coercion without U.S. participation. Meanwhile, the U.S. cannot conduct affordable major wars in Iran or Asia without European geography and infrastructure. The dependency is now bilateral, and Europe is beginning to understand this.

[ASSESSED] If the U.S. continues on its current trajectory, it is likely—medium-to-high confidence—to be structurally pushed out of Europe’s warfighting core within five to seven years. A European SACEUR becomes reality. The B61 mission dies. U.S. bases become expensive, constrained, and politically precarious. A rational U.S. course would be to stop waging cognitive war on European democracies, end alignment with Russian strategic aims, pay serious rent for bases it wants to retain, and accept French-led nuclear arrangements as the new centre of gravity.

(U) CLOSING ASSESSMENT

The dominant commentary still uses the language of ‘tensions in the alliance’ and ‘burden-sharing debates.’ That language belongs to the last decade, not this one. The reality NSD sees is starker:

1. France has become the only structurally independent nuclear power in Europe—and has now chosen to weaponise that independence on behalf of the continent rather than hoard it. That choice, more than any capability announcement, is the event.

2. Germany’s survival and France’s own fate are now inseparable, whether Paris acknowledges it in public or not. That is why forward deterrence is not generosity—it is self-preservation in a European body.

3. NATO’s warfighting commands are already in European hands. SACEUR’s American identity is symbolic; its operational meaning will expire with the first serious crisis that requires a European to hold the launch codes.

4. The U.S. has burned through its moral credit and is sitting on a trillion-dollar unpaid rent bill. It is simultaneously dependent on European geography for any major military operation and treating Europe’s democracies as adversaries. That combination is not sustainable.

Against that backdrop, France’s choice to step out of its Gaullist solitude and offer to lead a new nuclear Europe is not a curiosity. It is the hinge on which the continent’s survival is now turning. The fourteen months between Macron’s first ‘strategic debate’ speech and the Île Longue doctrine announcement were not a rhetorical arc—they were a ladder, deliberately constructed, carefully timed, and now fully extended. Trump tested it at Greenland. He blinked. He will test again. The question for everyone else is whether they will have climbed it before the next test arrives.

Note: A reader asked what “synthesized analytical judgment” means. AI is used to surface data: find, grade for accuracy, evaluate, cross reference, and sort, multiple research lines of operation.

UPDATE - Norway joins making 9 members total

Leave a tip!

Leave a comment

Share

Leave a comment

(U) REFERENCES AND NOTES

Footnotes refer to key sources below

Footnote [1]: NSD. (2026). NUKES-2026-002: French Nuclear Signaling Ladder and the Greenland Reversal.

Footnote [2]: The National Security Desk. (2026, February). NATO UK Deterrent Analysis: Sovereign at Launch, Dependent Below.

Footnote [3]: The National Security Desk. (2026, February). NATO NC2: How American SACEUR Maintains Nuclear Command.

Footnote [4]: The National Security Desk. (2026, February 9). UK, Germany Rebrand US as “Enemy.”

Footnote [5]: ASN4G (Air-Sol Nucléaire de 4ème Génération). Contract awarded 2021; IOC estimated 2035. ASMP-A entered service 2009; upgraded 2021. Gap between ASMP-A end-of-life and ASN4G IOC creates a potential 3–7 year window of degraded airborne leg credibility.

Footnote [6]: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), 1968. Articles I and II address transfer and receipt of nuclear weapons. France is an NPT-recognized NWS under Article IX. Forward basing of nuclear-capable aircraft raises Article I/II questions depending on whether “custody and use” procedures are deemed adequate under German/Polish constitutional law.

Footnote [7]: NSD calculation. Four Triomphant-class SSBNs. France maintains one boat on patrol at all times (POSTURE DE PERMANENCE). Second boat in short-notice readiness. Two boats in maintenance/refit at any given time. Compare UK: also four boats, same patrol rotation. US: ~14 Ohio-class SSBNs.

Footnote [8]: RAND Corporation. (2004). Host Nation Support Study for US Forces in Europe; American Action Forum. (2020). The Cost of US Overseas Military Presence; NSD conservative estimate: ~40 billion USD annual value × 35 years (1991–2026) = approximately 1.4 trillion USD cumulative implicit rent.

Key sources:

[1] Macron, E. (2026, March 2). Full Speech Transcript: President Emmanuel Macron on the Evolution of the French Nuclear Doctrine. Île Longue SSBN Base.

[2] The National Security Desk. (2026, February). NATO Attention Munich Series.

[3] Macron, E. (2025, March). Presidential Address: Europe Must Take on America and Russia.

[4] NSD. (2026). NUKES-2026-002: French Nuclear Signaling Ladder and the Greenland Reversal.

[5] NSD. (2026). NATO NC2: How American SACEUR Maintains Nuclear Command.

[6] NSD. (2026). NATO UK Deterrent Analysis: Sovereign at Launch, Dependent Below.

[7] NSD. (2026, February 11). US Stripped from Key NATO Commands.

[8] NSD. (2026, February 9). UK, Germany Rebrand US as ‘Enemy.’

[9] Kristensen, H. & Norris, R. French Nuclear Forces. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, various years.

[10] Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), 1968. Articles I and II.

[11] NSD analysis of French SSBN patrol posture, Triomphant-class order of battle.

[12] ASN4G development contract (2021); ASMP-A mid-life upgrade (2021); IOC estimates per open-source defense reporting.

[13] RAND Corporation (2004); American Action Forum (2020); NSD calculation: ~40B USD/yr × 35 years = ~1.4T USD cumulative implicit rent.

[14] German Bundestag fiscal reform (2025); Polish, Baltic, Nordic defense budget data (2024–2026).

[15] U.S. National Archives. Marshall Plan Documentation and Loan Repayment Records.

WASHINGTON 9MAR2026

(U) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The most powerful shock in world affairs since the first atomic bomb fell on Japan has already taken place, and almost no one has noticed. This assessment explains how, in the run‑up to invading Greenland, Donald Trump attempted to remove the U.S. nuclear umbrella from over 440 million Europeans who have depended on American protection since the Second World War. Had he succeeded, that act would have exposed a continent already enduring the largest and longest major land war in Europe since 1945 to Russian aggression unchecked by U.S. nuclear power.

France and the United Kingdom both possess nuclear forces, but neither is integrated into NATO’s nuclear command‑and‑control architecture. As shown in an earlier NSD assessment on the British deterrent, the UK’s nuclear “independence” is structurally constrained by reliance on U.S. Trident infrastructure. That leaves France as the only fully sovereign nuclear power capable of defending European territory—but French forces sit outside NATO, and until now their formal mission has been to protect France alone. Because of what Trump did, all of that has changed—quietly, in the space of weeks—while the rest of the world was distracted by other crises. The changes are so radical that France is now implicitly threatening nuclear war against the United States over Greenland in order to protect Danish territory.

Look closely at Trump’s rhetoric and his obstinate determination to “get Greenland one way or another,” then at how abruptly that bravado stopped at Davos when he announced he would not attack Greenland after all. The National Security Desk proceeds from a simple premise: something happened behind the scenes to force that reversal. Given President Emmanuel Macron’s speeches over the past year—each one escalatory, each one more explicit about French “vital interests” extending to the survival of Europe—it is more plausible than not that Paris privately threatened nuclear consequences if the United States crossed the line into an armed attack on Greenland. Nothing short of that would explain Trump’s sudden willingness to humiliate himself in public.

This analysis goes behind the scenes to show how Trump attempted to withdraw U.S. nuclear protection from America’s closest allies in Europe and leave them to their fate with Russia, and how fast not only France but eight other countries have moved to protect themselves once they understood the United States would, in practice, abandon NATO. That abandonment looks even more ludicrous viewed alongside a basic operational fact Trump appears not to grasp: there are only two airfields in all of Europe capable of sustaining high‑tempo U.S. heavy bomber operations, and he is openly attacking the leaders of both host nations while threatening to use their sovereign soil against their will.

The United States is about to relearn why alliances matter. The Iran war is escalating wildly; mission creep is now seeping into official talking points, and Trump himself is musing about “boots on the ground,” which would be a strategic catastrophe. Where do American wounded go if Germany, having discovered that Washington was planning to strip away its nuclear protection while exposing it to Russian retaliation, decides it has had enough and shutters Ramstein Air Base? Europe now has the ability to do to Trump what Eisenhower did to Britain and France over Suez: impose real pain by constraining America’s ability to wage war. If the logical endpoint of Trump’s policy is eventual expulsion of U.S. forces from European soil, European leaders may conclude that it is better to do it now—when it would cripple his Iran adventure—than later, when the damage will be irreversible. Pain is the only language he has ever responded to.

(U) SECTION I: WHAT WE KNOW

Trump’s Order to Give Up SACEUR

In March 2025, NBC and other outlets reported that the Trump administration was actively considering surrendering the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) role—held exclusively by American four‑star generals since Eisenhower—to a European officer[1][2]. This was not a passing brainstorm. Pentagon briefings outlined a restructuring in which U.S. European Command (EUCOM) would be downgraded, merged, or re‑scoped, and the SACEUR portfolio would be opened to non‑Americans[1][3].

Admiral James Stavridis, who served as SACEUR from 2009 to 2013, responded with unusual bluntness.

“For the United States to give up the role of supreme allied commander of NATO would be seen in Europe as a significant signal of walking away from the alliance,” he said, and “would be seen, correctly, as probably the first step toward leaving the Alliance altogether”[4].

European diplomats took the reports seriously enough to go around Trump. The Times of London and other sources record that senior Europeans lobbied key Republicans in Congress to block any move to relinquish SACEUR, warning that it would shatter confidence in Article V[5][6]. According to those accounts, congressional leaders quietly told the Pentagon that outright surrender of SACEUR was politically untenable—for now[4][5].

The Whitaker Trial Balloon

The idea did not die. It went public.

At the Berlin Security Conference in November 2025, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matt Whitaker sat on a panel next to Lt‑Gen Wolfgang Wien, Germany’s military representative to NATO[5][7]. In front of cameras, Whitaker said:

“I look forward to the day when Germany comes to the United States and says, ‘We’re ready to take over the Supreme Allied Commander position.’ I think we’re a long way from that, but I look forward to those discussions”[5][7][8].

He described this as an “aspirational goal” and framed it as part of getting Europe to “leave parental care and get a job at last”[5][7]. Lt‑Gen Wien, visibly taken aback, replied that he had always regarded SACEUR as a permanent American post and warned that the position carried a unique direct line to the U.S. president and a central role in nuclear deterrence[5][7].

European press coverage was unusually candid: Whitaker’s statement was read as confirmation that the White House had not dropped its SACEUR idea at all—it had simply moved to the public trial‑balloon phase, with Germany cast as the designated replacement[7][9].

The EUCOM Downgrade and JFC Purge

When outright SACEUR transfer ran into congressional resistance, the administration pivoted to structural workarounds.

Throughout late 2025, Pentagon planners advanced a global combatant command review that contemplated downgrading EUCOM’s role and responsibilities while elevating INDOPACOM and other theaters[1][10]. In December 2025 and February 2026, NATO and the United States jointly announced a sweeping restructuring of operational headquarters: all three four‑star Joint Force Commands—Norfolk (Atlantic/Arctic), Naples (Mediterranean), and Brunssum (Central Europe)—would transition to European leadership[11][12].

For 75 years, those posts had never been held by non‑Americans. Now, in one stroke, U.S. officers were removed from all operational‑level NATO warfighting commands. SACEUR remained American—but the ladder underneath him had been kicked away[11][12].

The NC2 Wiring: Why SACEUR Matters

As NSD documented in a February 2026 assessment, NATO’s nuclear deterrent rests on a single integrated mechanism: the forward‑deployed B61 gravity bombs allocated for use by dual‑capable aircraft in several European countries[13][14].

The key facts:

1. The U.S. strategic triad—ICBMs, SLBMs, and nuclear bombers—is controlled exclusively by U.S. Strategic Command. It is not under NATO command in any way[13][14].

2. The B61 theater weapons in Europe remain U.S. property, equipped with U.S. Permissive Action Links (PALs), and can only be released on presidential order[13][14][15].

3. The only way that order can be translated into NATO action is through the dual‑hat American SACEUR, who wears two uniforms: Commander, U.S. European Command (EUCOM), and Supreme Allied Commander Europe[13][14][15].

In a crisis, the chain runs as follows: the U.S. President authorizes use of specific B61 packages; as EUCOM commander, SACEUR receives that order and executes the transfer of custody to NATO dual‑capable aircraft; as SACEUR, he directs allied forces in the theater[13][14][15]. It is a self‑transfer: a U.S. four‑star moves U.S. nuclear weapons into a NATO mission under his own dual authority.

If SACEUR is no longer American, that mechanism breaks. A non‑U.S. officer cannot legally receive custody of U.S. nuclear weapons under current U.S. law and PAL protocols. The dual‑hat self‑transfer disappears. The B61 mission, as currently designed, becomes inoperable[13][14][15].

Lt‑Gen Sean Bernabe, former Deputy Commanding General of U.S. Army Europe and a mentor in the Baltic Storm war game, spelled out the conventional side of this hinge. In a hotwash conversation, he noted that SACEUR has standing authority to deploy certain NATO forces for immediate self‑defense, alert and stage high‑readiness units, adjust air policing and maritime patrols, and—crucially—move U.S. forces under national command in his EUCOM hat before the North Atlantic Council reaches consensus[16]. That is the rapid‑reaction shock absorber in the first 24–72 hours of a crisis.

LTG Sean Bernabe, U.S. Army (Ret.) — former Deputy Commanding General of U.S. Army Europe and a senior mentor to Baltic Storm — drove this point home in the hotwash with an observation that deserves wider attention.

“In reality, the SACEUR has some authority to deploy forces without approval by the North Atlantic Council. This authority is not broad authority to deploy any NATO force of his choosing. Rather, the SACEUR has standing or delegated authority to deploy forces for immediate self-defense or for local tactical defense. He may also alert and stage designated high readiness forces, conduct air policing, and adjust maritime patrol routes for standing NATO maritime forces. The SACEUR is also “dual-hatted” as the Commander of USEUCOM. In that role, he may deploy US Forces under US national command authority without NAC approval. The deployment of such US forces could have a significant deterrent effect and buy time for the NAC to reach consensus for NATO military action.”

Take the American out of SACEUR, and you lose both the nuclear self‑transfer and the conventional shock absorber.

France, the UK, and the Nuclear Gap

France and the UK are nuclear‑weapon states, but their roles in NATO’s deterrent architecture are often misunderstood.

France’s deterrent is fully sovereign: French warheads, French delivery systems, French NC2. Paris does not participate in the NATO Nuclear Planning Group, does not host U.S. nuclear weapons, and has no role in the B61 system. Its arsenal is designed to protect French “vital interests,” which Macron has now hinted may include the survival of European partners[13][14][17][18].

The UK, by contrast, is deeply entangled with the United States. Its Trident II D5 SLBMs are purchased from the U.S., maintained in U.S. facilities, and rely on U.S. guidance and targeting infrastructure, even though warhead release remains a British political decision[13][14][19]. London asserts operational independence, but the technical reality is dependence.

Neither arsenal is wired into NATO’s formal NC2 for the B61 mission. When Trump moves to abandon SACEUR and downgrade EUCOM, he is not “turning the keys over” to France or Britain. He is creating a vacuum.

The Greenland Crisis and the Davos Reversal

Parallel to the SACEUR drama, Trump escalated a manufactured crisis over Greenland.

Throughout late 2025 and early 2026, he publicly demanded U.S. control over Greenland on “national security” grounds, threatened Denmark with tariffs and secondary sanctions, and refused to rule out the use of force[20][21]. He made clear he viewed Greenland as an asset to be seized—“one way or another, we are going to get it”[20][21].

Europe responded with unprecedented unity. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated flatly that “the United States has no right to annex any part of the Danish Realm” and urged Washington to end its threats against “a historically close ally”[20][22]. The presidents and prime ministers of Denmark, France, Germany, the UK, Poland, Spain, and Italy issued a joint statement affirming Greenland’s sovereignty and warning against any attempt to change its status by force or coercion[20][21][22].

Then, at Davos in January 2026, Trump abruptly announced that he would not use force to acquire Greenland. “Military action is not on the table,” he said, insisting that he still believed the U.S. “deserved” Greenland but would pursue “other means” and “economic leverage”[23][24][25]. The man who had promised to take it “one way or another” now renounced the most powerful “other.” The tariffs quietly receded as well[23][25][26].

Public analysis treated this as a climb‑down after European pushback. The official line is that markets, alliance unity, and domestic politics persuaded Trump to walk back his threats. None of those explanations is wrong. None of them is sufficient.

(U) SECTION II: WHAT WE DON’T KNOW

We do not know the content of private conversations between Macron and Trump at Davos and in the preceding weeks. We do not know the precise signals France sent through military channels, including SSBN patrol patterns and strategic air deployments. We do not know the full range of options EUCOM and NATO planners put on the table if the United States moved on Greenland.

We do not know the exact terms of French forward‑deterrence understandings with Denmark, beyond public references to cooperation and Macron’s deliberately ambiguous extension of “vital interests” to include “the survival of our closest partners”[17][18][27]. We do not know whether any written assurances were exchanged, or whether the understandings remain purely political.

We do not know how far European intelligence services and defense ministries have gone in contingency planning for a U.S.–Europe confrontation. The NSD materials on intelligence firewalls and NATO command restructuring hint at substantial preparation but do not detail nuclear‑specific pathways[28][29].

We do not know whether Trump’s SACEUR order included explicit timelines or internal red lines, nor what additional “compromise options” were considered beyond the JFC purge and EUCOM downgrade[1][10][11].

Finally, there are unknown unknowns: actors we have not identified, channels we cannot see, and decisions made in rooms without note‑takers because all involved understood what was at stake.

(U) SECTION III: WHAT WE THINK

Trump Nearly Terminated NATO Nuclear Deterrence

The headline is not that Trump “sent a bad signal” by flirting with giving up SACEUR. It is that he ordered planning for changes which, if implemented, would have terminated NATO’s only integrated nuclear deterrent mechanism in all but name.

By removing the American from SACEUR, you sever the only operational bridge between U.S. presidential nuclear authority and NATO’s B61 dual‑key architecture. You also remove the only officer who can rapidly move U.S. forces under national command and NATO assets under delegated authority in the first 72 hours of a crisis[13][14][16]. That is not burden‑sharing. It is an attempted nuclear amputation.

Congressional and European intervention blocked the most overt form of this move—handing SACEUR to a European general—but they did not stop the underlying strategy. The EUCOM downgrade and JFC purge accomplished much of the same effect at the operational level. The American still sits in the SACEUR chair. Most of the levers under his hands now belong to others[10][11][12].

From an NC2 perspective, NATO’s extended deterrent rests today on a single brittle assumption: that Washington will not follow through on the last step of the plan it already began to execute.

France Has Moved to Fill the Vacuum

Macron’s March 2 Île‑Longue speech and the forward‑deterrence architecture are best understood as a direct response to this vacuum. He is not simply offering “European nuclear solidarity”; he is building an alternative nuclear hinge to replace the one Trump is trying to destroy[17][18][27].

France is expanding its arsenal, dispersing its forces, and integrating eight partners—including Denmark—into a web of exercises, basing options, and conventional enablers, while keeping nuclear decision‑making strictly national[17][18][27]. The message is clear: if Washington walks away from the nuclear backbone of NATO, Paris will build a new backbone. On French terms.

The United Kingdom is invited into this architecture but arrives weakened. Its Trident dependence on the United States limits its freedom to act as a fully sovereign nuclear pillar. Politically, London is moving toward closer coordination with Paris; structurally, it remains lashed to the same mast as Washington[13][14][19].

Davos: A Likely Nuclear Warning

Why did Trump back down at Davos?

Several factors undoubtedly mattered. European unity signaled that any move on Greenland would trigger a political and economic firestorm, jeopardizing his claims of “winning” for U.S. workers[23][25][26]. Markets and domestic constituencies signaled discomfort with a tariff war on the EU layered atop Iran and Ukraine[23][25]. Pentagon and Hill resistance to opening a third major front against a NATO ally would have been intense[10][20][30].

But these are the same kinds of pressures Trump has brushed aside before. He threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea, mused about seizing Iraqi oil, and repeatedly dangled withdrawal from NATO itself. He did not retreat on those lines because allies frowned. He retreated when the military, the markets, and the legal system made clear he would hit a wall.

In the Greenland case, an additional wall was in place: a newly articulated French doctrine that explicitly stretches “vital interests” to “the survival of our closest partners,” combined with concrete French–Danish deterrent cooperation and the quiet extension of forward‑based French air and naval assets toward the North Atlantic[17][18][27].

NSD’s judgment—high confidence—is that France, very likely in concert with Germany and the UK, conveyed privately that a U.S. military move against Greenland would be treated as an attack on Europe’s vital interests, with all that implies. There will never be a transcript. There does not need to be one. Macron had spent a year building the doctrinal and operational scaffolding for exactly such a warning. Trump’s behavior changed in precisely the way one would expect after receiving it[17][18][23][24][27].

Europe Has Learned the Lesson Faster Than Washington

Europe’s strategic classes—especially in Paris, Berlin, Copenhagen, Warsaw, and The Hague—have grasped the significance of Trump’s SACEUR gambit more rapidly than most American commentators. They see the attempted nuclear abandonment for what it is: the culmination of a forty‑year pattern of hostility to alliances now backed by concrete, operational steps[28][29][30].

Their response has been correspondingly radical:

1. France is transforming its deterrent from a national shield into a European backstop.

2. Germany is abolishing debt brakes and rearming at scale while moving toward nuclear coordination with France.

3. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Poland, and the UK are tying their security to French nuclear protection, implicitly acknowledging that U.S. guarantees are no longer sufficient[17][18][27].

In Washington, by contrast, much of the commentary still treats SACEUR as a “prestige” role and Greenland as a punchline. That is worse than complacent. It is strategically illiterate.

(U) ANALYTICAL JUDGMENT — MOST LIKELY ASSESSMENT

Trump nearly terminated NATO nuclear deterrence as we know it. He ordered planning for the surrender of SACEUR and the downgrading of EUCOM; when blocked from handing the post to a European outright, he accepted a structural purge that removed U.S. generals from all operational NATO commands. That sequence has already compromised the credibility and functionality of the B61 dual‑key system. If completed, it would sever NATO’s nuclear backbone entirely[1][10][11][12][13][14].

Europe, led by France, has responded by building a parallel nuclear architecture in which French forces, backed by British potential, assume the role Washington is trying to abdicate. Denmark’s enrollment in this architecture, amid a Greenland crisis that pitted it directly against the United States, accelerates the shift from “NATO with an American core” to “Europe with a French core”[17][18][27][28].

The Greenland crisis and the Davos reversal are best understood as the first test of this emerging order. Trump discovered that threatening war against a NATO ally now risks not only alliance rupture but nuclear confrontation with another Western power. He blinked. He will test again.

The only open question is whether the United States chooses to repair the damage—by reaffirming SACEUR, restoring EUCOM’s role, and re‑anchoring its nuclear guarantees—or continues down the path of abandonment, forcing Europe fully into France’s nuclear embrace.

Implications for U.S. Strategy and Escalation Risk

For the United States, the strategic implications are brutal.

If Washington persists in dismantling its own nuclear role in NATO while threatening allies with economic warfare and territorial seizure, it will lose Europe as a dependent flank and gain it as an increasingly autonomous, occasionally adversarial pole. U.S. access to bases, overflight rights, logistics hubs, and intelligence will erode. In the middle of a widening war with Iran, that erosion will translate directly into American casualties and operational limits[10][20][30][31].

For Russia, the window for exploiting U.S.–European fractures is closing. A Europe anchored to French deterrence, backed by trillion‑euro German rearmament and forward‑integrated Nordic and Central European forces, will be a far tougher target than the complacent, dependent continent Moscow has grown used to bullying[17][18][28][29].

For China, the lesson is both opportunity and warning. The unraveling of U.S. credibility in Europe offers Beijing propaganda fodder and strategic leverage in Asia. But it also demonstrates that U.S. allies are capable of constructing their own nuclear umbrellas when abandoned. Tokyo, Seoul, Canberra, and others are watching Macron closely[27][32].

The escalation risk is highest in transitional periods. We are now in one. A U.S. president has attempted to walk away from the nuclear backbone of NATO. A French president has stepped into the breach and quietly extended his deterrent to allies the United States is threatening. The Greenland crisis was the first collision. It will not be the last.

The nuclear age did not end with the Cold War. It has entered a more fluid, more dangerous phase—one in which the greatest risk to European security is no longer only in Moscow, but also in Washington.

Leave a tip!

Leave a comment

Share

Leave a comment

(U) REFERENCES

[1] NBC News. (2025, March 18). Trump admin considers giving up NATO command that has been exclusively American since Eisenhower. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-admin-considers-giving-nato-command-exclusively-american-eisenho-rcna196503

[2] Anadolu Agency. (2025, March 18). Trump administration could relinquish NATO command role held by US. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/trump-administration-could-relinquish-nato-command-role-held-by-us-report/3514063

[3] Breaking Defense. (2025, April 16). Official says DoD not considering pulling US out of NATO SACEUR leadership post. https://breakingdefense.com/2025/04/official-says-dod-not-considering-pulling-us-out-of-nato-saceur-leadership-post/

[4] Admiral James Stavridis. (2025, March 17). For four years at NATO, I was privileged to sit at a desk used by Eisenhower. [Twitter/X post].

https://x.com/stavridisj/status/1902162241949954219

[5] The Times of London. (2025, November 19). Trump ‘wants Germany to take command of Nato in Europe’. https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/trump-germany-lead-nato-europe-5q8gt6hdz

[6] The Telegraph. (2025, November 18). Donald Trump wants Germany to take over Nato. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/11/19/america-wants-german-nato-commander/

[7] Euronews. (2025, November 25). US ambassador suggests Germany take NATO’s top military role in future. https://www.euronews.com/2025/11/26/us-ambassador-suggests-germany-take-natos-top-military-role-in-future

[8] Defense Magazine. (2025, November 25). Trump suggests Germany could eventually lead NATO’s military command. https://www.defensemagazine.com/article/trump-suggests-germany-could-eventually-lead-natos-military-command

[9] Yahoo News. (2025, November 26). US ambassador suggests Germany take NATO’s top military role in future. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/us-ambassador-suggests-germany-natos-110733105.html

[10] Reuters. (2025, December 5). Exclusive: US sets 2027 deadline for Europe-led NATO defense. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-sets-2027-deadline-europe-led-nato-defense-officials-say-2025-12-05/

[11] The National Security Desk. (2026, February 11). US stripped from key NATO commands. https://civilwarii.substack.com/p/us-stripped-from-key-nato-commands

[12] The National Security Desk. (2026, February 11). France: Trump is seeking the EU’s dismemberment. [Internal NSD analysis of JFC restructuring]

[13] The National Security Desk. (2026, February 16). NATO and nuclear command and control. [Comprehensive NC2 analysis]

[14] The National Security Desk. (2026, February 16). NC2 of the U.S. strategic triad: Strategic chain of command and NATO exclusion. [Technical NC2 assessment]

[15] Congressional Research Service. (2023). U.S. Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Europe. https://crsreports.congress.gov

[16] Lieutenant General Sean Bernabe (U.S. Army, Ret.). (2026, February). Baltic Storm war game hotwash commentary.

[17] President Emmanuel Macron. (2026, March 2). Speech by the President of the Republic on France’s nuclear deterrence. Élysée Palace.

[18] Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2026, March 3). Macron’s Île-Longue speech: Updating France’s nuclear doctrine for a new era. https://www.csis.org/analysis/macrons-ile-longue-speech-updating-frances-nuclear-doctrine-new-era

[19] Congressional Research Service. (2022). The United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent: Issues for the United States. https://crsreports.congress.gov

[20] The National Security Desk. (2026, January 18). The Greenland crisis: America’s hybrid war against Europe. https://civilwarii.substack.com/p/the-greenland-crisis-americas-hybrid

[21] Aaron Rupar. (2026, January 16). Reporter: Do you commit to not militarily engaging NATO partners? Trump: I don’t talk about that. [Twitter/X video clip]

[22] The National Security Desk. (2026, February 13). Attention Munich 2026: Letter to Macron regarding Greenland and Danish sovereignty.

[23] Reuters. (2026, January 23). Trump says he won’t use military force on Greenland. https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-davos-greenland-2026-01-23/

[24] Financial Times. (2026, January 23). Trump backs down on Greenland military threat at Davos. https://www.ft.com/content/trump-greenland-davos

[25] Bloomberg. (2026, January 23). Trump retreats on Greenland after European pushback. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/trump-greenland-retreat

[26] The Guardian. (2026, January 24). Trump quietly drops tariff threats against Denmark after Davos climb-down. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/24/trump-denmark-tariffs-greenland

[27] The National Security Desk. (2026, March 9). France’s Nuclear Revolution: Forward Deterrence and the Tectonic Realignment of European Security.

[28] The National Security Desk. (2026, February 13). NATO intelligence firewalls: Delivering Europe to Russia.

[29] The National Security Desk. (2026, February 13). Europe arrives in Munich facing a truth it can no longer ignore: U.S. as hybrid threat.

[30] Politico. (2025, January 22). Trump’s new term, NATO’s old fears. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/22/trump-nato-second-term-fears

[31] Defense News. (2026, March 5). Iran escalation raises questions about U.S. access to European bases. https://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2026/03/05/iran-escalation-us-european-bases/

[32] Foreign Affairs. (2026, February 20). The Indo-Pacific watches Europe’s nuclear awakening. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/2026-02-20/indo-pacific-watches-europe-nuclear

(U) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The bright streak visible in reentry videos of U.S. nuclear tests is not a missile ascending — it is an unarmed reentry vehicle falling back to Earth at Mach 20 or above. It represents the most consequential peacetime technical activity any nuclear-armed state conducts: a live validation of the systems on which deterrence ultimately depends. This assessment examines how the United States and its allies conduct strategic missile test programs, how failure is defined and managed within those programs, and how adversary and emerging nuclear programs compare on the dimension of testing reliability.

The analysis draws on open-source reporting, declassified test records, independent arms control tracking databases, and academic literature on missile reliability and crisis signaling. It covers U.S. land-based ICBMs (Minuteman III), the sea-based Trident II D5, British and French SLBM programs, Russia’s RSM-56 Bulava, China’s JL-series, India, Pakistan, Iran, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Key findings favor the assessment that the United States maintains a commanding reliability advantage — but that advantage is neither effortless nor permanent. It is earned, test by test, through a disciplined failure-investigation culture that most competitors do not replicate.

(U) SECTION I: HOW U.S. MINUTEMAN TESTS ACTUALLY WORK

The unarmed Minuteman III launches conducted from Vandenberg Space Force Base are operational test flights: a missile pulled at random from a missile wing, refurbished and instrumented, then fired across the Pacific to the Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll. The goals are threefold — validate missile hardware and guidance, verify that launch crews and command-and-control can execute from alert through key-turn, and gather detailed trajectory and environmental data from reentry vehicles riding out the full flight profile.

These are not snap exercises. They are scheduled years in advance, routinely notified to Russia under existing bilateral agreements, and publicly announced with sufficient lead time to prevent miscalculation. The transparency is deliberate and constitutive: the strategic communication value of a Minuteman test depends on adversary confidence that they understand what they are observing.

Most Minuteman tests carry a single high-fidelity reentry vehicle fitted with sensors and tracking aids. Multiple reentry vehicle (MRV or MIRV-like) shots — such as the recent GT-255 test that deployed two unarmed RVs — are intentionally less frequent. They are more complex, more expensive, and are employed when the test community wants to validate specific functions such as post-boost-vehicle maneuvering and multi-object deployment, not because the operational force routinely flies two or three RVs on every mission profile. That is why multi-RV tests attract attention: they are an occasional capability validation within a small annual test budget, not the baseline profile.

(U) SECTION II: U.S. SLBMS — THE TRIDENT II RELIABILITY BASELINE

The UGM-133 Trident II D5 SLBM is the backbone of the U.S. sea-based nuclear deterrent and has one of the best-documented test records of any strategic missile in the world. Open-source compilation of Navy test data counts 215 Trident II launches, with approximately 207 successes — a success rate of roughly 96 percent across a program spanning more than three decades of operational deployment. As with Minuteman, ‘failure’ in this context covers anything short of a clean run through the test plan, whether that is a booster ignition anomaly, a guidance or post-boost bus issue, or a range-safety termination.

The U.S. Navy does not publicize granular failure modes for individual anomalous shots, but British tests using the same missile have offered periodic visibility into what failure looks like. In 2016, a Trident II launch from HMS Vengeance suffered a telemetry anomaly that caused the range safety officer to abort the flight after launch, producing political fallout disproportionate to the technical event. In January 2024, a launch from HMS Vanguard saw the first-stage boosters fail to adequately propel the missile downrange; the missile left the water but fell back into the Atlantic in a pre-cleared impact box. From a test-program perspective, both are classified as failures — they did not complete the planned trajectory with clean data — even though the underlying U.S. D5 fleet record at the program level remains very strong.

(U) SECTION III: ALLIED PROGRAMS — UK AND FRANCE

The United Kingdom operates a small but politically hyper-visible SLBM test program: a handful of Trident launches spread across decades, each one a front-page political event because British SSBN patrols are inseparably tied to domestic debates over nuclear renewal and burden-sharing within NATO. The two most recent UK tests — in 2016 and 2024 — both produced anomalies that now define the public narrative around British nuclear credibility. In engineering terms, these failures fall within the anomaly band that any complex missile program experiences over a sufficient test series. In political terms, they are catastrophic precisely because the sample size is so small: two failures in the last two tests is a terrible ratio, even if it is statistically meaningless for a program with this few launches.

France’s M45 and M51 SLBM programs tell a structurally similar story, though with marginally better political insulation due to France’s independent nuclear posture outside integrated NATO command. French Navy testing of the M51 began in 2006 and, by 2013, included one publicly confirmed failure: a missile launched from SSBN Le Vigilant that self-destructed shortly after launch during the first propulsion phase. French officials emphasized that submarine launch and missile egress were nominal, and that the self-destruct occurred over a pre-cleared area of the Atlantic. From a deterrence-communication standpoint, the managed transparency of the French response — acknowledging the anomaly while contextualizing it as a controlled engineering event — represents a more sophisticated public information approach than the political handling of the 2024 British case.

(U) SECTION IV: ADVERSARY AND EMERGING PROGRAMS

Russia: Bulava’s rocky road and Skyfall’s deadly failures

Russia’s recent SLBM story is dominated by the RSM-56 Bulava, developed as the main armament for its Borei-class SSBNs. Open-source tallies and Russian reporting in the late 2000s and early 2010s depict a program with a very rough start: by 2010, six of thirteen flight tests had failed outright, and additional “partial successes” had issues such as the bus failing to separate warheads properly. By 2013, the official line was that eight of twenty tests had failed, and that even after some later improvements, launch anomalies—like a 2013 test where one Bulava self-destructed in the boost phase and another failed to deliver its warheads to the target—were still occurring.

For a brief moment in August 2019, Russia gave the world a glimpse of what can go wrong when you try to bend the rules of physics for nuclear deterrence. The mysterious explosion at the Nyonoksa naval test range on the White Sea killed at least five Rosatom nuclear specialists and two servicemen and produced a short-lived spike in radiation in the nearby city of Severodvinsk. Western intelligence and independent analysts now broadly assess that the accident was linked to the 9M730 Burevestnik (”Skyfall”), a nuclear-powered cruise missile Russia has been struggling to make work—reportedly with multiple flight tests that flew only tens of kilometers before failing, followed by a botched 2019 recovery operation in which the reactor appears to have gone critical as it was being lifted from the seabed. Unlike the tightly controlled ICBM and SLBM tests run by the U.S. and its allies, Skyfall’s test history is mostly a trail of aborted or severely underperforming flights punctuated by a lethal radiological accident at sea, which Russian authorities initially tried to explain away as a “liquid-fuel rocket engine” mishap before quietly admitting it was tied to “new weapons” developed after the collapse of the ABM Treaty.

For U.S. readers, it is worth remembering that Washington walked this road first and then turned back.[fn1] In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Air Force and Atomic Energy Commission ran Project Pluto, a nuclear-powered ramjet cruise missile program whose “Supersonic Low-Altitude Missile” would have flown at treetop height for hours, spewing fission products out the back and flattening anything under its shockwave, before delivering multiple nuclear warheads. Engineers actually built and ran full-power test reactors in Nevada, proving the physics, but by 1964 the program was canceled: ICBMs like Minuteman made such a doomsday cruise missile operationally redundant, and there was no politically acceptable way to test or employ a weapon that would deafen, irradiate, and contaminate friendly territory just by flying over it. A parallel effort to develop nuclear-powered bombers under the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program—culminating in the NB-36H testbed that flew nearly 50 sorties with a live reactor on board—was similarly abandoned, not because it was impossible but because any crash risked scattering reactor debris over U.S. soil in peacetime. In other words, the United States concluded half a century ago that nuclear-powered delivery systems were technically feasible but strategically and environmentally indefensible; Russia’s Skyfall is an attempt to revive a class of weapon the U.S. judged too dangerous to keep pursuing. Its right up there in desperation with Hitler and his magic weapons.

China — Opacity and the JL Program

China’s sea-based leg has evolved from the short-ranged JL-1 to the JL-2, and now toward the JL-3. Public, granular failure statistics are scarce, reflecting Beijing’s tight information control. However, U.S. and independent analyses over the past decade have repeatedly noted significant problems with JL-2 flight tests, including multiple failed launches and analytical uncertainty as late as 2013 over whether specific tests were actually successful. More recent reporting on JL-3 tests from Type 094 submarines suggests a maturing program, but without a clean success-rate denominator. The opacity itself carries analytical weight: it forecloses the kind of adversary confidence-building that transparent test programs provide, while simultaneously denying outside analysts the data needed to assess reliability with precision.

India and Pakistan — A Diverging Pair

India and Pakistan present a strategically significant contrast. India’s Agni series has experienced its own failures — including a 2019 Agni-III test failure attributed to a manufacturing defect, with the missile behaving abnormally after first-stage separation — but India’s overall trajectory has been toward higher reliability and more technically complex systems. The MIRV-capable Agni-V program, which New Delhi presents as evidence of technological maturity, reflects an iterative development culture that incorporates failure data productively. Pakistan’s trajectory presents a different picture: high-profile test failures, safety incidents involving Shaheen-III crashes near populated areas, and persistent quality-control concerns linked to heavy dependence on external technology inputs. This divergence has direct implications for South Asian stability — a Pakistani deterrent with an unreliable delivery system is not equivalent to an Indian deterrent with a reliable one, even at equivalent warhead counts.

Iran — Testing Under Sanctions Constraints

Iran’s ballistic missile program has experienced numerous test failures and misfires, though detailed, vetted statistics are limited and reporting is often filtered through competing political frameworks — Israeli, American, and Iranian. The key structural characteristic of Iran’s program is that it operates outside the controlled range architecture that U.S. and allied programs employ: many tests occur in proximity to populated areas, without the kind of maritime and airspace exclusion that makes Western test failures politically manageable. This creates a higher risk profile for individual test events, even as Iran’s overall missile program has demonstrated meaningful technical progress across multiple systems.

North Korea — Learning by Failing in Public

North Korea is the clearest case study in public iterative learning. Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation estimates indicate that through 1994, roughly half of all North Korean missile launches failed. Between 1994 and 2011, that rate dropped to approximately 23 percent. Between 2011 and 2023, it fell further to around 15 percent — still elevated by great-power standards, but representing a marked improvement that tracks directly with increased test frequency and engineering feedback loops. This trajectory spans everything from Scud-type SRBMs to longer-range systems and space-launch vehicles, with failures encompassing pad explosions, early-flight breakups, and guidance anomalies.

Unlike the U.S. or France, North Korea conducts many tests without large maritime and airspace exclusion zones, creating real risk to neighboring states and domestic populations from anomalous flights. But analytically, the underlying pattern is recognizable: early high failure rates, followed by iterative improvement as engineers close the loop between observable failure modes and design changes. The difference is that the world observes almost every one of Pyongyang’s misfires under crisis conditions, without the contextualizing infrastructure of official statements and pre-notification that give Western test failures their engineering rather than political character.

(U) KNOWN UNKNOWNS

The following knowledge gaps are identified as material to this assessment and likely to remain unresolved through open-source analysis alone:

The precise failure modes and root-cause findings from the 2018 and 2023 Minuteman III range-safety terminations remain classified. Post-failure engineering reports are not published, and the press releases provide no technical granularity.

China’s JL-2 and JL-3 test success rates are unknown to open-source analysts with precision. The absence of a verifiable denominator means that available partial data could support significantly different reliability assessments.

The degree to which Russia’s Bulava post-failure improvements have translated into genuine operational reliability — as opposed to successful single-digit test runs from controlled conditions — is not assessable from public sources.

Pakistan’s actual test failure rate, disaggregated by system and failure mode, is poorly documented in credible open-source literature. Pakistani government reporting on test results is not independently verifiable.

The British government has not publicly disclosed the root-cause findings from either the 2016 or 2024 Trident anomalies. The strategic implications of two consecutive anomalous tests depend heavily on whether they share a common failure mode.

The following scenarios represent analytically plausible but currently uncharted contingencies that could materially alter the assessment’s conclusions:

(U) ANALYTICAL JUDGMENT

Across all programs surveyed — from Minuteman III and Trident II to Bulava, the JL-series, Agni, and North Korea’s Hwasong family — the underlying logic of strategic missile testing is identical. Strategic missiles sit in silos, submarines, or depots for years at a time; components age, supplier chains change, and the engineers who built the original systems retire or die. Without periodic full-up test flights — warhead-less reentry vehicles falling out of space into instrumented ocean ranges — no nuclear force can honestly claim knowledge of how its arsenal will perform when called upon. The glowing streak in a reentry video is therefore not evidence of brinkmanship; it is evidence of professional deterrence management.

The United States maintains a structural reliability advantage in strategic missile testing that derives not primarily from warhead count or missile throw-weight, but from test infrastructure quality, failure investigation depth, and the institutional culture that treats each anomaly as engineering information rather than political embarrassment. The Trident II’s 96-percent success rate over more than 200 test launches is an extraordinary achievement — one that Russia paid for in public humiliation to approach with Bulava, and that China has yet to demonstrate at comparable scale and transparency.

The anticipatory element of this assessment concerns the durability of that advantage. As all P5 arsenals undergo modernization cycles, and as emerging programs like India’s Agni-V MIRV capability and North Korea’s improving Hwasong series close the technical distance to advanced delivery systems, the question for U.S. planners is not whether adversaries will eventually achieve comparable reliability — they likely will — but whether U.S. test infrastructure and the institutional knowledge it embodies can sustain the margin through a modernization period that will test political as well as engineering resolve.

Leave a tip!

Leave a comment

Share

Leave a comment

References

[1] Wikipedia. (2002, March 20). Atmospheric entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry

[2] Wikipedia. (2002, April 16). LGM-30 Minuteman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman

[3] Garwin, R. L. Technical aspects of ballistic missile defense. The Garwin Archive. https://rlg.fas.org/garwin-aps.htm

[4] How US Nuclear Minuteman 3 ICBM works? [Video]. (2025, November 26). YouTube.

[5] Investigation of the performance characteristics of re-entry vehicles [PDF]. (2005, September 12). Air Force Institute of Technology. https://scholar.afit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4714&context=etd

[6] Re-entry vehicle terminal velocity. (2023, January 3). r/nuclearweapons. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclearweapons/comments/103fjcp/reentry_vehicle_terminal_velocity/

[7] U.S. Air Force. (2024, November 5). Minuteman III test showcases readiness of U.S. nuclear force’s safe, effective deterrent. Air Force Global Strike Command. https://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3957640/minuteman-iii-test-showcases-readiness-of-us-nuclear-forces-safe-e

[8] Losey, S. (2023, November 2). Air Force ‘safely terminated’ a nuclear-capable missile after failed test launch near California coast. Military.com. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/11/02/minuteman-iii-missile-destroyed-after-failed-test-launch-near-california-coast.html

[9] Newdick, T. (2018, July 30). Minuteman III missile test launch from Vandenberg AFB ends in failure. Noozhawk. https://www.noozhawk.com/minuteman_iii_missile_test_launch_from_vandenberg_afb_ends_in_failure/

[10] Roblin, S. (2018, July 31). Air Force destroyed unarmed ICBM in test gone wrong. Military.com. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/08/01/air-force-destroyed-unarmed-icbm-test-gone-wrong-stratcom-chief.html

[11] U.S. Space Force. (2026, March 3). GT 255: ICBM test launch verifies multiple reentry vehicle and system reliability. Vandenberg Space Force Base. https://www.vandenberg.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4420560/gt-255-icbm-test-launch-verifies-multiple-reentry-veh

[12] U.S. Space Force. (2026, March 3). ICBM test launch verifies multiple reentry vehicles, system reliability. https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4421073/gt-255-icbm-test-launch-verifies-multiple-reentry-vehicles-syste

[13] Tirpak, J. A. (2021, May 4). Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile test aborted due to undisclosed issue. The War Zone. https://www.twz.com/40467/minuteman-iii-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-test-aborted-due-to-undisclosed-issue

[14] Tirpak, J. A. (2023, November 4). ICBM test failure puts nuclear modernization effort into focus. Air & Space Forces Magazine. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/icbm-test-failure-nuclear-modernization/

[15] Minuteman test launch in Vandenberg SFB fails. (2023, October 31). News Channel 3-12. https://keyt.com/news/santa-maria-north-county/2023/11/01/minuteman-test-launch-in-vandenberg-sfb-fails/

[16] Wikipedia. (2004, May 23). UGM-133 Trident II. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II

[17] Trident II D-5 fleet ballistic missile FBM / SLBM. Nuclear Resources. Federation of American Scientists. https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm

[18] How serious was the Trident missile test failure? (2017, January 22). UK Defence Journal. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/serious-trident-missile-test-failure/

[19] British Trident missile test launch fails for second time. (2024, February 20). UK Defence Journal. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-trident-missile-test-launch-fails-for-second-time/

[20] Trident missile test fails for second time in a row. (2024, February 20). BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68355395

[21] Pickard, J. (2024, February 25). A credible deterrent? Trident missile fails during test launch from HMS Vanguard. Navy Lookout. https://www.navylookout.com/a-credible-deterrent-trident-missile-fails-during-test-launch-from-hms-vanguard/

[22] What is Trident? UK confirms second nuclear test failure. (2024, February 20). Evening Standard. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/what-trident-submarines-nuclear-test-failure-b1140541.html

[23] French M51 ballistic missile fails during test, self destructs shortly. (2013, May 4). Army Recognition. https://armyrecognition.com/archives/archives-naval-defense/2013/french-m51-ballistic-missile-fails-during-test-self-destructs-s

[24] French M51 ballistic missile self-destructs in failed test. (2013, May 4). Yahoo News. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/french-m51-ballistic-missile-self-destructs-failed-test-172019569.html

[25] Wikipedia. (2005, October 8). RSM-56 Bulava. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava

[26] Bulava: Russia’s most spectacular defense industry failure. (2013, October 21). The Jamestown Foundation. https://jamestown.org/bulava-russias-most-spectacular-defense-industry-failure/

[27] Bulava test was not quite successful. (2008, September 21). Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces. https://russianforces.org/blog/2008/09/bulava_test_was_not_quite_succ_1.shtml

[28] Bulava missile test: insistent mistake making? (2010, June 1). Russian Navy. http://rusnavy.com/science/weapons/bulava.htm

[29] From drawing board to launch pad: The rise, fall and rise of the Bulava. (2011, October 22). Naval Technology. https://www.naval-technology.com/features/featurefrom-drawing-board-to-launch-pad-the-rise-fall-and-rise-of-the-bulava/

[30] SLBM test failures halt Russian submarine development. (2013, September 8). Military.com. https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/09/09/slbm-test-failures-halt-russian-submarine-development

[31] China tests JL-3 submarine launched ballistic missile. (2019, December 26). Military Watch Magazine. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/china-tests-jl-3-submarine-launched-ballistic-missile-u-s-mainland-well-within-range

[32] China’s ballistic-missile submarines: How dangerous? (2013, November 17). The National Interest. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-ballistic-missile-submarines-how-dangerous-9414

[33] Indian military suffers setback as Agni-III test fails due to manufacturing defect. (2019, December 1). The Express Tribune. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2110282/indian-military-suffers-setback-agni-iii-test-fails-due-manufacturing-defect

[34] India’s missile might versus Pakistan’s failed missile flights. (2025, July 31). Indian Defence News. https://www.indiandefensenews.in/2025/08/indias-missile-might-versus-pakistans.html

[35] Sobel, E., & Jo, H. (2025, August 3). Ready to fire? Missile tests and crisis involvement. Journal of Global Security Studies, 10(4). https://academic.oup.com/jogss/article/10/4/ogaf024/8221652

[36] North Korea missile test activity [PDF]. (2023, November). Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/North-Korean-Missile-Test-Activity-Fact-Sheet.pdf

[37] North Korea missile launch activity [PDF]. (2025, December). Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/North-Korean-Missile-Test-Activity-Fact-Sheet-December-2025-Edit.pdf

[38] Fact sheet: North Korea missile launch activity. (2023, November 13). Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-north-korea-missile-test-activity/

[39] Wikipedia. (2019, August 14). Nyonoksa radiation accident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident

[40] Russia nuclear accident released radioactive isotopes of barium. (2019, August 25). CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-nuclear-accident-released-radioactive-gas-cloud-isotopes-government-reveals-today-2019-08-26

[41] Seibert, P. (2019, August 7). Nyonoksa accident, Russia, 8 Aug 2019. University of Vienna. https://homepage.univie.ac.at/petra.seibert/nyonoksa.html

[42] Putin’s Skyfall missile failed a test and exploded in a deadly nuclear accident. (2019, October 13). Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-putins-skyfall-missile-failed-test-and-exploded-during-recovery-2019-10

[43] U.S. concludes White Sea radiation explosion came during Russian nuclear missile recovery. (2019, October 12). Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-concludes-white-sea-radiation-explosion-came-during-russian-nuclear-missile-recovery/30213494.html

[44] Panic buying and toxic rocket fuel: What exactly happened at a Russian test site? (2019, August 9). Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. https://www.rferl.org/a/radiation-rocket-fuel-nyonoksa-white-sea-explosion-russia/30101978.html

[45] Russia blast radiation caused by Skyfall missile. (2019, August 20). DW. https://www.dw.com/en/russia-blast-radiation-caused-by-skyfall-missile-us-experts-say/a-50102686

[46] Wikipedia. (2002, June 16). Project Pluto. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

[47] Project Pluto: The most insane missile America ever built. (2025, December 1). Sandboxx. https://www.sandboxx.us/news/project-pluto-the-most-insane-missile-america-ever-built/

[48] Project Pluto: The craziest nuclear weapon in history. (2020, December 2). Coffee or Die Magazine. https://www.coffeeordie.com/project-pluto-slam-missile

[49] Russia’s new nukes are similar to a risky project the U.S. abandoned. (2018, March 2). Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/russias-new-nukes-are-similar-to-a-risky-project-the-u-s-abandoned/

[50] Why the US canceled Project Pluto: The super weapon that never was. (2023, October 7). SlashGear. https://www.slashgear.com/1410540/us-canceled-project-pluto-why/

[51] America thinks nuclear-powered missiles are too dangerous. (2025, August 13). The National Interest. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/america-thinks-nuclear-powered-missiles-too-dangerous-russia-disagrees-bw-081425

[52] Experts aghast at Russian claim of nuclear-powered missile. (2018, February 28). NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/01/590014611/experts-aghast-over-russian-claim-of-nuclear-powered-missile-with-un

[53] Wikipedia. (2011, May 17). Convair NB-36H. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H

[54] Convair NB-36H nuclear-powered bomber. (2025, February 28). The Armory Life. https://www.thearmorylife.com/convair-nb-36h-nuclear-powered-bomber/

[55] Did the US really experiment with an airplane that used nuclear power? (2025, July 18). SlashGear. https://www.slashgear.com/1914555/did-united-states-experiment-with-nuclear-powered-airplane-engines/

[56] The world wasn’t ready for nuclear-powered bombers. (2025, March 19). Air & Space Quarterly. https://airandspace.si.edu/air-and-space-quarterly/issue-14/nuclear-bomber

WASHINGTON DC 6 MAR2026

(U) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The question of whether the United Kingdom possesses a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent has been politically settled in Britain for decades — and analytically contested for almost as long. HM Government’s official position is that operational independence is real: the Prime Minister alone authorises launch, the firing chain is sovereign, and no foreign power holds a veto. The Trident system’s critics argue that this framing obscures a deeper structural reality: that British nuclear capability is, at every level below the firing decision itself, dependent on American technology, materials, software, and goodwill. This assessment examines both claims on their technical merits.

This assessment examines the real architecture of UK nuclear independence across two distinct dimensions: operational sovereignty and technical dependence. The answer is partly reassuring and partly deeply troubling. Britain can, today, fire its nuclear weapons without American permission. It cannot, over a multi-year horizon of sustained estrangement, maintain those weapons at full operational effectiveness. The distinction matters. The timeline matters more.

(U) KEY FINDINGS

(U) ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

(U) DECLARED ASSUMPTIONS

(U) SECTION I: THE TWO TYPES OF INDEPENDENCE

The debate over UK nuclear independence has always turned on a distinction that politicians prefer to obscure: independence of acquisition versus independence of operation. France chose the former, paying a substantially higher cost to design, manufacture, and maintain an entirely sovereign nuclear capability. The United Kingdom chose the latter — purchasing American-made Trident D5 missiles, warhead components, and associated fire-control systems at significant cost savings, while asserting that the decision to fire remains, at all times, a sovereign British choice.

Both claims are technically true. Both are also, in a different political context, incomplete. The question is not whether the UK can fire. The question is whether it can keep firing — and for how long, and under what conditions of American hostility or indifference.

Professor Colin Gray, one of Britain’s foremost nuclear strategists, was prepared to describe the UK deterrent plainly as ‘a hostage to American goodwill,’ and acknowledged that this dependency ‘is critical and will continue.’ ¹

NSD’s assessment is that Gray’s framing remains accurate — and that the political conditions under which it could be tested have become, for the first time since the Nassau Agreement of 1962, genuinely live.

U) SECTION II: THE TECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE — WHERE DEPENDENCE IS REAL

NSD’s assessment is direct: UK Trident is technically dependent on the United States across several critical domains, and that dependence is structural, not incidental.

The missiles themselves — Trident D5 — are American and are maintained at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia, as part of a pooled arrangement with the Royal Navy. UK submarines collect their allocated missiles from the shared pool on patrol rotation. In any scenario of deep US-UK estrangement, continued access to the pool would become a live question. This is not theoretical. It is the logistics of the system.

More technically specific — and more consequential for the independence question — is the warhead’s Arming, Fuzing, and Firing (AF&F) system. Each function is sequential and non-negotiable: ‘arming’ removes the safety interlocks that keep the weapon inert during handling and transit; ‘fuzing’ determines the precise moment and altitude of detonation; ‘firing’ delivers the final electrical command that initiates the nuclear reaction. The AF&F is the physical gate between a launch order and a detonation — the component that governs whether a nuclear warhead can detonate at all. The UK’s AF&F is a slight variant of the system deployed on the US W76 warhead, designed and manufactured in the United States. Sandia National Laboratories, the US facility responsible for designing arming, fuzing and firing mechanisms across the American stockpile, designed this system for the UK.

UK Trident warheads are currently undergoing a significant upgrade — from Mk4 to Mk4A — and the modification programme replaces the existing AF&F with a new US-supplied Mk4A AF&F. The new system carries substantially more computing power than its predecessor, enables more sophisticated targeting, and can monitor warhead status in real time. Critically, it introduces a requirement that did not exist in the same form on the Mk4: a unique authorization code — the Intent Word — must be entered before the warhead can arm and detonate. Without a valid Intent Word, the warhead cannot function regardless of what the firing chain above it instructs.

The hardware and software for the UK Intent Word system is produced in the United States. The contracting record is specific: the U.S. Navy issued contracts for the development of the UK Intent Word system and its associated displays as part of broader Trident Fire Control System contracts. The US Navy was the contracting authority procuring this system on behalf of the UK. This means the system was not merely designed in America — it was procured through American defence contracting channels, with the UK as end user rather than sovereign customer. The distinction matters when assessing what domestic technical oversight the UK can realistically exercise over the system’s integrity.

The Select Committee record is, on this point, unambiguous. Professor Dan Plesch, giving evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee, characterised the system as failing ‘the 1940 requirement’ — the ability to be used in situations of extreme national emergency when the UK was alone and isolated — in any scenario where the United States was neutral, opposed, or actively adversarial. ²

(U) SECTION III: CAN AMERICA STOP THE UK FROM FIRING?

This is the operational question that matters most in the current strategic environment, and the answer — as best as can be determined from open sources and expert testimony — is: No. Not in the short term. Not through any legal or technical override mechanism currently acknowledged to exist.

Commodore Tim Hare, former Director of Nuclear Policy at the Ministry of Defence, was unambiguous under parliamentary examination: ‘Operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not involve anybody else.’ He confirmed explicitly that the United States does not possess a technical golden key capable of preventing UK use. ³

Sir Michael Quinlan, the principal architect of modern UK nuclear doctrine, framed the concept with characteristic precision: in the last resort, he stated, ‘we can press the button and launch the missiles whether the Americans say so or not.’ The U.S. ‘can neither dictate that [the UK’s] force be used if HMG does not so wish, nor apply any veto — legal or physical — if HMG were to decide upon its use.’ ⁴

NSD accepts this testimony at face value. The UK’s operating doctrine and purchase terms have been structured precisely around this principle. Modifying that architecture would require a deliberate, detectable act of technical subversion by the U.S. — not a passive withdrawal of cooperation. There is no credible evidence in open sources that such an override exists or has been quietly installed.

(U) SECTION IV: THE DEGRADATION TIMELINE — HOW LONG WITHOUT AMERICAN SUPPORT?

The operational independence question and the sustainability question are distinct and must not be conflated. The UK can fire its deterrent without American permission. It cannot, over an extended period of total U.S. non-cooperation, maintain that deterrent at full operational effectiveness.

NSD’s working assessment, drawing on the public expert literature, constructs a four-horizon degradation model. The critical planning assumption embedded in UK Government contingency thinking — assessed with medium confidence — is that no U.S. estrangement scenario is permanent, and that the system’s reserve capacity is calibrated to bridge political discontinuities until alliance normalisation restores the cooperative maintenance relationship.

The UK’s strategic bet is on outlasting a hostile or indifferent American administration long enough for alliance normalisation to restore the cooperative maintenance relationship before irreversible degradation occurs. This is not an irrational assumption. The Trump administration’s first term produced bilateral friction, but not structural rupture of the Trident relationship. The question is whether the second term represents a continuation of that pattern or a genuinely different strategic posture.

(U) SECTION V: NATO NUCLEAR ARCHITECTURE AND THE AMERICAN DEPENDENCY PROBLEM

To understand why the question of UK nuclear independence is not merely academic, it must be placed within the broader architecture of NATO’s nuclear posture — an architecture built entirely around American primacy and, in its most operationally critical layer, physically incapable of functioning without it. A prior NSD assessment of NATO nuclear command and control established the structural baseline. ⁵ This section draws on that analysis to frame what US disengagement would actually mean at each level of the nuclear ladder.

The command chain for B61 employment begins with the US President, whose authorisation travels through the National Military Command Center to the Commander of US European Command — who is simultaneously SACEUR. This dual-hatted arrangement is the structural mechanism through which American nuclear weapons enter NATO command. The NSD NC2 assessment describes what the alliance calls the ‘SACEUR self-transfer’: because SACEUR is an American officer, the transition from US national custody to NATO operational execution is seamless. The weapon, the codes, and the command authority all reside in the same person. Remove the American from SACEUR and this mechanism does not simply weaken — it structurally breaks.

The practical consequence of this architecture is that NATO’s nuclear posture — at both the tactical and strategic levels — is built on a single load-bearing pillar: American participation. There is no fallback. No NATO ally has its own tactical nuclear weapons. The B61 sharing mission cannot function without US codes, US custody, and an American SACEUR to execute the transfer. The strategic layer is anchored explicitly in US forces. The UK contributes a national deterrent with genuine sovereignty over the firing decision but structural dependency on American maintenance. France contributes genuine independence but has, until very recently, declined to integrate that capability into a broader European framework.

The structural signal arrived in February 2026. NATO announced that all three of its operational-level Joint Force Commands — JFC Norfolk, JFC Naples, and JFC Brunssum — would transfer to European leadership. The United Kingdom assumed JFC Norfolk; Italy took Naples; Germany and Poland will rotate Brunssum. NATO announced that all three of its operational-level Joint Force Commands — JFC Norfolk, JFC Naples, and JFC Brunssum — would transfer to European leadership. The United Kingdom assumed JFC Norfolk; Italy took Naples; Germany and Poland will rotate Brunssum. ⁶ For the first time since NATO’s founding, every major operational command below SACEUR is held by a European officer. The significance of what did not change is as important as what did: SACEUR remains American. For now.

The reason SACEUR was not included in the February restructuring is not sentimental. It is nuclear. Removing the United States from SACEUR does not merely change a command slot — it severs the mechanism by which US nuclear weapons enter NATO command. A European SACEUR cannot execute the ‘self-transfer’ that authorises B61 employment. He commands the headquarters. He does not hold the codes. Without an American SACEUR, the tactical nuclear layer of NATO’s posture becomes operationally inert.

This assessment was drafted before reporting confirmed that the Trump administration had moved to remove the United States from the SACEUR position. What was originally framed as an anticipatory scenario became, in the interval between analysis and publication, reported fact. The full implications — for the B61 sharing mission, for extended deterrence across all 29 non-nuclear NATO members, and for the Alliance’s command architecture — will be the subject of a dedicated forthcoming NSD assessment. Readers who wish to be notified when that analysis is released are encouraged to subscribe.

Subscribe now

The purpose of recording the SACEUR development here is methodological: this is precisely the kind of structural signal that analysis built on declared assumptions and known unknowns is designed to flag before it crystallises into crisis. What was anticipatory intelligence in January is reported fact in March. The pace of change is itself the warning.

(U) KNOWN UNKNOWNS

NSD identifies the following material gaps in the open-source record that constrain the confidence of this assessment. These are known unknowns — areas where the question is clear but the answer is not available:

1. The precise technical architecture of the Mk4A Intent Word system, including the extent to which UK MoD can independently validate hardware integrity against undisclosed modification.

2. Whether the UK Government has initiated contingency planning for an alternative missile supply arrangement (e.g., French M51 compatibility studies, domestic production feasibility) in response to the current U.S. posture.

3. The classified state of UK Trident maintenance stockpiles and the precise threshold at which the Years 3–5 degradation markers would become operationally significant.

4. The precise contingency arrangements — if any exist — under which NATO’s B61 nuclear sharing mission could continue to function with a European SACEUR, including whether alternative PAL transfer protocols have been modelled by alliance planners.

NSD flags the following scenarios as outside current analytical baselines but carrying sufficient strategic weight to name explicitly. These are unknown unknowns — possibilities that structured analysis might otherwise exclude by assumption:

(U) ANALYTICAL JUDGMENT

The UK nuclear deterrent’s firing chain is operationally sovereign. No formal U.S. veto exists, and that assessment is well-founded in doctrine and sworn parliamentary testimony. NSD holds it with high confidence. However, the conclusion that “America cannot stop the UK from pressing the button” requires qualification: the U.S. retains multiple technical and operational mechanisms — GPS denial, fire control software dependency, Anti-Submarine Warfare capability, and Aegis intercept systems — that could severely degrade a launch attempt in any scenario of active U.S. hostility. Operational independence describes the legal and command architecture. It does not describe the full operational environment.

The UK nuclear deterrent is technically dependent on the United States. Over a multi-year horizon of sustained estrangement, that dependence would translate into degraded capability. The UK’s planning assumption — that no hostile American administration is permanent — is strategically reasonable but reflects a bet, not a guarantee. NSD holds the degradation timeline assessment with medium confidence, constrained by limited open-source visibility into maintenance stockpile depth.

The wider NATO nuclear architecture is substantially more exposed than either of these bilateral assessments suggests in isolation. The Alliance’s tactical nuclear layer — the B61 sharing mission — has no European substitute and cannot function without an American SACEUR to execute the transfer from US national custody to NATO operational control. The strategic layer is anchored in US forces by explicit Alliance policy. Of the two European national deterrents, only France’s is genuinely sovereign at every technical level. The UK’s contribution is sovereign at the command level and dependent at the technical level. In a sustained estrangement scenario, France becomes by default the only nuclear capability in Europe with the structural independence to function without American cooperation.

The framing of this as a role Paris has not yet ‘formally accepted’ requires precision. France has, in fact, been offering variants of extended deterrence since de Gaulle — the offer has never been the obstacle. The more accurate formulation is that NATO as an institution has never formally asked. That asymmetry is now collapsing. Eight sovereign European states have accepted Macron’s current offer directly, outside any formal NATO framework: the architecture is already forming around a coalition of the willing rather than waiting for Alliance consensus. Whether that coalition eventually formalises into a NATO role — and on what terms, and who bears the cost — is among the most consequential open questions in European security. A forthcoming NSD assessment addresses Macron’s ‘Advanced Deterrence’ framework and the ‘archipelago of forces’ architecture in detail.

Leave a tip!

Leave a comment

Share

Leave a comment

WASHINGTON DC 16FEB2026

In a NATO context, any decision to employ nuclear weapons involves two distinct categories of U.S. systems. The first consists of the B61 gravity bombs forward‑deployed in Europe. These are “tactical” only in the sense that they are delivered by dual‑capable U.S. or allied aircraft—such as the F‑16 or Tornado—under NATO’s nuclear‑sharing arrangements.

The second category comprises the U.S. strategic nuclear triad based in the continental United States: intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine‑launched ballistic missiles, and air‑launched cruise missiles, along with U.S.-only variants of the B61 and the B83. These two categories operate under different chains of command, and this article will explain how those command pathways diverge.

NATO’s nuclear decision‑making is governed by a structured consultation process involving the North Atlantic Council (NAC), the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG), and the Nuclear Operations Policy Committee (NOPC). These bodies provide political guidance, not operational control. NATO distinguishes between “time‑permissive” and “time‑urgent” scenarios: in the former, allies are consulted through the NPG and NAC; in the latter, the 2020 Nuclear Matters Handbook notes that the U.S. President “may consult with allies,” but is not required to do so if consultation would jeopardize survivability or response timelines. This asymmetry explains why NATO can approve B61 missions collectively, while U.S. strategic forces operate outside alliance structures.

While these U.S. systems form the backbone of NATO’s nuclear posture, two European allies—France and the United Kingdom—maintain their own national deterrents. These forces sit alongside NATO’s arrangements rather than inside the B61‑based sharing system, and each follows a distinct command‑and‑control model. The next section outlines how France and the UK fit into the broader nuclear landscape.

France and the United Kingdom

Set against this architecture is a crucial exception: France. Unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, France maintains absolute strategic autonomy and remains the only NATO member outside the Nuclear Planning Group. Its Force de Dissuasion—roughly 290 warheads deployed via M51 SLBMs (Triomphant‑class) and ASMP‑A cruise missiles (Rafale)—is a fully sovereign arsenal. French systems are not integrated into NATO nuclear planning, are not subject to U.S. Permissive Action Link protocols, and are not governed by any “two‑key” arrangements. The French President alone holds authority for employment.

As a result, France neither hosts U.S. B61s nor assigns its forces to NATO command. In an Article V scenario, SACEUR has no operational control or guaranteed visibility into French nuclear posture or maneuvers. Paris acknowledges a “European dimension” to its deterrent, but the command chain remains strictly national—designed to protect French “vital interests” as defined solely by the Élysée. France has offered to extend its nuclear deterrent to all NATO allies. The initial assessment of that offer is explored in detail in the link below and an update on its status will be released soon. Subscribe to be alerted when that comes out.

Subscribe now

The United Kingdom occupies a middle position between the U.S. and France. It is a nuclear‑weapon state within NATO and a full participant in the Nuclear Planning Group, yet it does not host U.S. B61 bombs or contribute aircraft to the nuclear‑sharing mission. Britain’s deterrent is a single‑platform force: four Vanguard‑class submarines armed with Trident II D5 SLBMs, soon to be replaced by the Dreadnought class. While the UK asserts “operational independence” over its arsenal—including exclusive national control of targeting and release—the system is deeply intertwined with U.S. technology, maintenance, and missile infrastructure. A separate assessment of the true extent of this independence is forthcoming; subscribe if you want to be notified when that analysis is released. For NATO purposes, however, the UK deterrent remains a national contribution rather than part of the alliance’s dual‑capable aircraft posture.

NATO’s nuclear posture is anchored in its declaratory policy, reaffirmed in the 2012 Deterrence and Defence Posture Review (DDPR) and updated in the 2022 Strategic Concept. The Alliance states that “as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance,” relying on U.S. strategic forces, forward‑deployed B61 bombs, and allied dual‑capable aircraft. NATO maintains deliberate ambiguity regarding the circumstances under which nuclear weapons might be used, emphasizing that the “supreme guarantee” of allied security is provided by the U.S. strategic deterrent. This policy framework shapes the operational logic of the B61 mission.

NATO Tactical nukes - the weapon

The B61 gravity bomb is a cornerstone of the United States’ “nuclear sharing” mission within NATO, representing the primary tactical nuclear weapon forward-deployed in Europe. Manufactured in the U.S., approximately 100 of these bombs are currently stored in secure underground vaults at six European air bases: Kleine Brogel (Belgium), Büchel(Germany), Aviano and Ghedi (Italy), Volkel (Netherlands), and Incirlik (Turkey). Recent reports also indicate a return of nuclear storage capabilities to RAF Lakenheath in the United Kingdom (Scientific Global Responsibility). The B61 is a “dial-a-yield” weapon, meaning its explosive force can be adjusted prior to flight; for the modernized B61-12 variant, this range spans from a “low-yield” 0.3 kilotons to a maximum of 50 kilotons (Air Force Technology). These gravity bombs are designed to be dropped by “Dual-Capable Aircraft” (DCA) operated by both the U.S. and its allies. Allied aircraft include the Belgian and Dutch F-16s, the German and Italian PA-200 Tornadoes, and the newly nuclear-certified F-35A which is being adopted by several NATO partners (Breaking Defense). The U.S. Air Force maintains its own nuclear-certified wings in Europe, primarily flying the F-15E Strike Eagle and the F-35A, ensuring that both the U.S. and host-nation pilots can execute these missions (Sandboxx).

The distribution of B61s across Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Turkey reflects Cold War basing logic and modern burden‑sharing principles. These sites were selected for their proximity to potential theaters of conflict, hardened infrastructure, and political willingness to participate in nuclear sharing. Hosting B61s signals national commitment to collective defense and ensures that multiple allies share the risks and responsibilities of NATO’s nuclear posture. Modernization programs—especially the transition to the F‑35A—are designed to preserve this burden‑sharing model into the 2030s.

Share

NATO NC2 of the B-61 Arsenal

The chain of command for a B61 nuclear release under Article V begins with the U.S. President, who holds sole authority to authorize the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. Upon a presidential decision, the order is authenticated by the Secretary of Defense and transmitted through the National Military Command Center (NMCC) to the Commander of U.S. European Command (USEUCOM), who maintains physical custody of the munitions via U.S. Munitions Support Squadrons (MUNSS). Parallel to this U.S. national “release track,” the North Atlantic Council (NAC) and Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) must provide “political approval” via consensus to authorize a NATO-sanctioned mission. These tracks converge at the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), who, in his dual-hatted capacity, “transfers” the weapons from U.S. custody to NATO operational control. Once SACEUR possesses both the U.S. Permissive Action Link (PAL) codes and the NATO political mandate, he issues the strike order to the specific Allied Dual-Capable Aircraft (DCA) wings. While the U.S. provides the “First Key” (the weapon and codes), the host nation provides the “Second Key” (the aircraft and pilot), effectively granting both the U.S. President and the host-nation government a mutual veto over the mission’s execution.

While USEUCOM holds operational command, U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) serves as the “Enterprise Lead” for the mission. STRATCOM manages the Global Nuclear Command and Control System (NC3) infrastructure required to transmit the President’s Emergency Action Messages (EAM) and provides the targeting expertise and global de-confliction necessary to ensure theater B61 strikes do not interfere with strategic Triad operations. In his March 2025 testimony, the STRATCOM Commander emphasized that this relationship is critical for “executing operational plans,” providing the specialized Liaison Cells to SACEUR’s headquarters to bridge the gap between NATO theater maneuvers and U.S. global strategic posture.

NATO does not maintain standing nuclear strike plans, and there is no pre‑delegation of authority to field commanders. Any B61 employment would occur only after a political decision by the NAC and a national decision by the U.S. President. The Alliance views B61s as tools for intra‑war escalation control—intended to signal resolve, halt aggression, or prevent further deterioration of the battlefield situation. NATO deliberately avoids specifying thresholds for nuclear use, maintaining ambiguity to complicate adversary planning. This stands in contrast to U.S. strategic forces, which maintain continuously updated strike options under OPLAN 8010‑12.

Mechanics of the NC2

• Release Process: The President transmits the authorization through the Emergency Action Message (EAM) system. This order is authenticated using the “Biscuit” (ID codes) and the “Football” (SOPs).

• The SACEUR “Self-Transfer”: Because the SACEUR is an American officer, the transition from U.S. national control to NATO execution is seamless. As Gen. Cavoli noted in 2025 testimony, he would “pass the weapons under his command as the head of EUCOM to himself to use as SACEUR.”

• Permissive Action Links (PAL): Even if a NATO ally hosts the weapons or flies the DCA, the U.S. maintains physical and technical control via PAL codes. These digital locks can only be “unlocked” by the U.S. President, preventing any unilateral use by a host nation.

• Consultation Probability: While NATO policy emphasizes consultation via the NPG, the 2020 Nuclear Matters Handbook clarifies that “depending on the crisis situation, the President may consult with U.S. allies,” implying that in extreme “launch-under-attack” scenarios, the U.S. may prioritize speed over multilateral deliberation.

The Turkey Exception

Turkey hosts approximately 20 to 50 B61 nuclear gravity bombs at Incirlik Air Base. It is unique among the five nuclear-hosting NATO nations because it does not maintain a certified delivery fleet.

In a nuclear strike scenario, the chain of command for Turkey is technically “broken” at the tactical level:

• No Active DCA Fleet: Since the retirement of their specialized nuclear-tasked squadrons in the late 1990s, the Turkish Air Force (TuAF) has not maintained certified F-16s for the nuclear mission.

• F-35 Exclusion: Turkey was removed from the F-35 program in 2019 following its purchase of the Russian S-400 system. Unlike other hosts (Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium), Turkey has no fifth-generation stealth aircraft capable of carrying the new B61-12 variant.

• Custody without Delivery: As of early 2026, the weapons at Incirlik remain under the exclusive custody of the U.S. Air Force 39th Weapons System Security Group.

• The “Fly-In” Requirement: Because Turkey does not fly the mission, an Article V nuclear strike originating from Turkish soil would require U.S. or other NATO aircraft (such as U.S. F-15Es from Lakenheath or Aviano) to fly into Incirlik, load the weapons, and then execute the mission.

The Unified Command Plan (UCP) Distinction

Under the U.S. Unified Command Plan, the roles are split between Geographic and Functional responsibilities:

• USEUCOM (Operational Control): The Commander of USEUCOM has Operational Control (OPCON) over the theater nuclear mission. He manages the custody, storage (via MUNSS units), and the eventual “self-transfer” to his NATO-hat as SACEUR. He is the commander responsible for the specific Article V tactical execution.

• USSTRATCOM (Enterprise/NC3 Lead): USSTRATCOM does not command the B61 drop, but it provides the infrastructure that makes it possible. As the “DoD NC3 Enterprise Lead,” STRATCOM manages the global Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications (NC3) network that transmits the President’s Emergency Action Message (EAM) to Cavoli’s headquarters.

Key USSTRATCOM Roles in a B61 Scenario

While USSTRATCOM is not in the direct tactical “release” chain for a B61, it is involved in three critical areas:

1. Planning & Targeting: USSTRATCOM manages the Joint Warfare Analysis Center (JWAC) and global targeting databases. According to the 2020 Nuclear Matters Handbook, STRATCOM provides “planning expertise to assist geographic unified commanders” (like EUCOM) to ensure that theater strikes align with broader U.S. strategic objectives and do not interfere with potential strategic Triad operations.

2. Global De-confliction: If SACEUR is preparing a B61 strike, STRATCOM ensures that this does not conflict with global missile defense or strategic bomber movements. In his March 2025 testimony, Gen. Cotton (STRATCOM) emphasized that the relationship with SACEUR is “important in the execution of operational plans” to maintain an integrated deterrent.

3. The B-52/B-21 Exception: If SACEUR requests “heavy bomber” support for a theater mission (using B61s but delivered by U.S. strategic bombers instead of Allied F-35s), the command chain involves a “support” relationship where STRATCOM provides the planes but SACEUR directs the mission.

Summary: Who “Owns” the Order?

• President to USEUCOM/SACEUR: The direct operational line for theater release.

• STRATCOM to NMCC: The technical line that maintains the radios, satellites, and codes used by the President to talk to USEUCOM/SACEUR.

“USSTRATCOM’s role... is not limited to nuclear plans and operations... it entails close alignment and collaboration with Geographic CCMDs.” — Gen. Anthony Cotton, 2025 Posture Statement

Share

NC2 of the U.S. strategic triad

Strategic chain of command and NATO exclusion

In a strategic nuclear strike in the EURCOM AOR—whether using ICBMs, SLBMs, or long‑range bombers—the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) is entirely outside the chain of command. As outlined in the 2025 Congressional Research Service report, the strategic NC2 pathway runs directly from the President, through the Secretary of Defense, to the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command (CDRUSSTRATCOM).

Mechanics of Triad NC2

The process begins with a presidential “Decision Conference” conducted over the Secure Video Teleconference System (SVTS). During this conference, the National Military Command Center (NMCC) authenticates the President’s identity using the “Challenge/Reply” codes carried on the “Biscuit.” Once validated, CDRUSSTRATCOM selects the appropriate strike option from OPLAN 8010‑12, the digital successor to the SIOP and the foundational architecture for U.S. strategic deterrence. In this framework, even an Article V response is treated as a sovereign U.S. national mission rather than a NATO‑directed operation.

After the President’s decision, the order is transmitted as an Emergency Action Message (EAM)—a highly formatted, encrypted instruction—through the National Military Command System (NMCS). STRATCOM disseminates these EAMs directly to the three legs of the Triad: Task Force 134 (SSBNs), Task Force 214 (ICBMs), and Task Force 204 (strategic bombers. This “sole‑lead” structure stands in contrast to NATO’s dual‑key B61 arrangements; there is no transfer of authority to a multilateral body. STRATCOM retains full operational control (OPCON) of the platforms and executes the President’s selected strike package without alliance mediation.

Positive control, PALs, and launch timelines

Technical control mechanisms differ across the Triad. For the bomber leg (B‑2, B‑21, B‑52), weapons are secured by Permissive Action Links (PALs), which require a ground‑transmitted code to arm. For the submarine leg, where real‑time communication may be impossible, launch authority relies on “Positive Control” procedures: the crew must receive and independently validate a properly formatted EAM to unlock the firing sequence, as Trident missiles lack remote‑disable PALs once submerged (CRS RL33575). The system is optimized for rapid “Launch Under Attack” timelines; ICBM retaliation can be authorized in under 15 minutes. While the President has a consultative duty to allies, survivable NC3 platforms—such as the E‑4B National Airborne Operations Center—ensure the President can bypass all consultative bodies to maintain deterrent credibility.

Survivable communications and adaptive targeting

STRATCOM’s ability to execute these missions depends on survivable communications. The E‑6B TACAMO fleet provides very‑low‑frequency connectivity to submerged SSBNs using trailing wire antennas, ensuring continuity of command even if ground‑based NATO or U.S. command centers are destroyed. Through its Global Operations Center (GOC), STRATCOM manages adaptive targeting within OPLAN 8010‑12, allowing the President to modify strike options in real time as the Article V battlefield evolves.

De‑confliction with NATO operations

Because strategic launches occur outside NATO command, de‑confliction becomes a critical operational requirement. If SACEUR is conducting a conventional air campaign, incoming U.S. strategic warheads pose a risk of fratricide or misidentification. To mitigate this, a STRATCOM Liaison Cell embedded at SHAPE provides real‑time trajectory and timing data, ensuring that NATO air and missile defenses do not interfere with U.S. strategic assets and that alliance forces are not caught in blast zones. This preserves the strict separation of command while preventing inadvertent operational overlap.

Unified command plan roles

Under the Unified Command Plan (UCP), USSTRATCOM is the supported commander for all strategic missions. Geographic combatant commands—such as USEUCOM or INDOPACOM—shift to supporting roles, providing theater assessments (e.g., enemy air defenses, troop movements) but lacking authority to redirect or halt a strategic missile passing through their area of responsibility. STRATCOM also maintains the Strategic Reserve Force, ensuring that even if a NATO defense mission is underway, a portion of the Triad remains withheld to deter opportunistic aggression by other nuclear powers.

Summary: Who “owns” the order?

• President → STRATCOM: The authoritative and operational line for all strategic nuclear strikes.

• STRATCOM → Task Forces: Direct execution; submarines, silos, and bombers act on STRATCOM’s EAMs, not NATO’s.

• STRATCOM → SHAPE: Notification only, to prevent NATO forces from being endangered by U.S. strategic trajectories.

“The President’s authority to order a strategic nuclear strike is inherent to his role as Commander in Chief... USSTRATCOM provides the survivable means to ensure that order is executed regardless of the state of the terrestrial network.” — Gen. Anthony Cotton, 2025 Senate testimony

Share

Conclusion

A clear picture emerges from the nuclear command‑and‑control architecture described above: NATO’s deterrent posture is built around a division of labor that only functions because an American officer occupies the SACEUR role. The B61 mission depends on a dual‑key system in which the United States retains technical control of the weapons while allied governments provide the aircraft and pilots. That arrangement requires a single individual who can receive a U.S. presidential release order in one capacity and execute a NATO mission in another. The “self‑transfer” mechanism is not a procedural convenience — it is the structural hinge that allows the alliance to employ nuclear weapons at all.

At the same time, the U.S. strategic triad — the ultimate guarantee of NATO’s security — sits entirely outside alliance command. In any Article V scenario, strategic retaliation remains a sovereign U.S. decision transmitted directly from the President to U.S. Strategic Command. NATO has no authority over that process, and SACEUR has no role in it. The alliance’s nuclear posture therefore relies on two parallel systems: a multinational theater mission that requires an American SACEUR to function, and a national strategic mission that remains exclusively under U.S. control.

This is why proposals to remove the United States from the SACEUR position quickly become more than symbolic. Changing the nationality of the post would require redesigning the nuclear‑sharing system, rewriting the dual‑key framework, and creating a new mechanism for transferring custody and authority that does not currently exist. It would also force the alliance to confront a second question: if the United States steps back from the nuclear architecture it built, whose deterrent fills the gap?

France is the only NATO member with a fully sovereign nuclear force — independent warheads, independent delivery systems, independent command authority — and Paris has publicly offered to extend that deterrent to European allies. The United Kingdom, while a nuclear‑weapon state, relies on U.S. missile infrastructure and shared maintenance arrangements that limit its ability to serve as a structurally independent substitute. These issues, and the implications of France’s offer, will be examined in separate analyses.

For now, the conclusion is straightforward: NATO’s nuclear system was designed around an American SACEUR, and altering that design would require re‑engineering the core of the alliance’s deterrent posture. Understanding that architecture is the necessary first step in assessing what comes next.

Leave a tip!

Leave a comment

Share

Leave a comment

Washington DC 15DEC2026

Monsieur le Président Macron — je vous remercie pour votre leadership.

Vous, le chancelier Friedrich Merz, et d’autres partenaires européens faites preuve d’une clairvoyance stratégique qui a manqué à des générations précédentes, lorsque détourner le regard et espérer le meilleur s’est révélé aussi dangereux que les menaces elles‑mêmes.

Si vous me le permettez, Monsieur le Président, je vous encouragerais respectueusement à engager directement la Première ministre Mette Frederiksen sur la question de l’acceptation de votre offre de dissuasion élargie. En tant qu’ancien planificateur nucléaire américain, je ne formule pas une telle recommandation à la légère. Je n’ai aucune envie de me retrouver du côté qui recevrait une garantie nucléaire européenne — mais je suis prêt à accepter ce risque dans l’intérêt de la stabilité mondiale.

De nombreux Américains sont profondément préoccupés non seulement par la conduite de notre pouvoir exécutif, mais aussi par l’acquiescement des autres branches du gouvernement à un moment où les contrôles constitutionnels sont les plus nécessaires. L’effet de signal nucléaire et diplomatique qu’aurait l’ouverture de cette discussion entre la France et le Danemark pourrait suffire à réveiller la conscience endormie de notre législature et à la pousser vers une résolution intérieure conforme au droit — une motivation qui, pour l’instant, demeure totalement inerte face à toute menace. Les partenaires européens déploient déjà des forces conventionnelles au Groenland comme dispositif d’alerte avancée, mais je suis certain que ces mesures conventionnelles ne suffiront absolument pas à obliger l’Amérique à prendre la pleine mesure de la situation. Seul un signal de niveau nucléaire possède la clarté dissuasive nécessaire pour briser la paralysie actuelle.

Mon intention, en offrant cette analyse, n’est pas de saper mon pays, mais de contribuer à le sauver. Mes recommandations ci‑dessous sont formulées au service de la Constitution des États‑Unis, du droit international et de la préservation d’un environnement stratégique stable. Elles s’appuient également sur la reconnaissance du fait que la France est le plus ancien allié continu des États‑Unis, un partenariat forgé durant notre Révolution et renforcé au fil de siècles de luttes communes et de défense mutuelle.

Comme Churchill l’a averti : « On ne peut pas raisonner avec un tigre quand on a la tête dans sa gueule. » L’apaisement n’a jamais retenu la main d’un tyran ; seule la fermeté a jamais mis fin aux menaces.

Lien vers l’analyse ci‑dessous.

1. Greenland - ZERO Indicators/Warnings from RUS/PRC - The US Threat to Greenland and France’s Role in Deterrence.

Travaux connexes

1. MACRON - “We can take on America and Russia” - France offers to extend its nuclear umbrella

2. Europe Needs to Ditch America - a war plan for Europe

3. The Danish (and EU) Earthquake - explanation of the European position for US audience

4. Trump Ready to Go to War With Europe - explanation of Trump’s thinking and European Response - for US audience

Washington DC 14JAN2026

Introduction

There is no evidence—none—across any observable domain that Russia or China are preparing to invade Greenland. Claims to the contrary have no basis in the empirical record. None of the behavioral, military, logistical, or strategic patterns that precede real-world operations are present, and the observable indicators are uniformly absent. The same cannot be said of US designs on sovereign Danish territory.

This absence is not a judgment about motives; it reflects a simpler fact: no preparatory behaviors exist. Across political signaling, force posture, logistics and sustainment, infrastructure activity, cyber shaping, economic mobilization, alliance coordination, and the micro‑level behaviors that typically precede escalation, there are zero indicators consistent with planning or preparing for an attack on Greenland.

The strategic environment makes this unsurprising. Greenland sits under the U.S. nuclear umbrella as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally. Extended deterrence has long stabilized the alliance system by reducing incentives for nuclear proliferation and lowering the risk of accident, miscalculation, or inadvertent escalation. Any attempt to seize NATO territory would trigger the nuclear tripwire—an outcome no rational actor courts.

Beyond the nuclear layer, NATO’s conventional posture provides Denmark and its Arctic territory with substantial defensive depth. This is the alliance’s core purpose and the reason states continue to join it. Finland and Sweden, the newest members, bring highly capable militaries that materially complicate any Russian calculus in the High North.

Viewed through the lens of observable behavior and structural deterrence, not rhetoric, the Greenland invasion narrative collapses. Competition in the Arctic is real; preparatory indicators for conflict are not.

Except from the United States. Of all actors in this scenario, only Washington has exhibited political signaling consistent with coercive intent toward sovereign Danish territory. And because the United States fields the largest and most capable military on earth, deterring an American attempt to force the issue requires hard power, not diplomatic language. France has already offered to extend its nuclear deterrent to its European partners, and Paris has demonstrated concrete commitment by deploying forces to Greenland and through President Macron’s visit today, where he pledged direct support to Denmark.

Accepting the French nuclear umbrella is now the most urgent step Copenhagen can take — the only red line Washington would be forced to respect — and it would send an unmistakable signal to allies, partners, and the U.S. Congress that coercion of Denmark will not be tolerated.

From my background in U.S. nuclear-war planning, this assessment is driven by professional obligation, not preference. That experience makes it impossible to ignore the distinction between the American public and the destabilizing behavior of a leader governing with historically low support. The concern is not theoretical: a US attack on a NATO ally would trigger alliance obligations, invite opportunistic moves by Russia against Poland and the Baltic states, and force France or the United Kingdom to consider nuclear signaling — or even nuclear use — to prevent a continental collapse in the absence of U.S. leadership - or worse, a US-Russian pact (covert or overt). Recall the world was shocked by the Nazi-Soviet pact in 1939. We are now living in a time of completely unexpected shocks. The risks flow from the structure of the system, not from any desire to see them realized.

Indicators and Warning (I&W): A Comprehensive Framework for Assessing Escalation and Conflict Risk

Effective national‑security assessment begins with a disciplined understanding of Indicators and Warning (I&W)—the structured observation of political, military, logistical, informational, and economic behaviors that reveal whether a state is shifting from routine competition into preparation for coercion, escalation, or armed conflict. The central premise is straightforward: intent maybe concealed, but preparation cannot. States must take observable steps—large and small—before initiating major action. Modern I&W integrates traditional signatures with the expanded possibilities of today’s data environment, producing a more comprehensive and earlier picture of emerging risk.

I. The Traditional Foundations of I&W

1. Strategic and Political Preparation

Escalation rarely begins with troop movements. It begins with political preparation of the environment, visible in shifts in rhetoric, legal positioning, and diplomatic posture. Analysts track:

• Changes in official statements, red‑line declarations, or territorial claims

• Legal or administrative actions that create pretexts for future operations

• Propaganda aimed at mobilizing domestic support or shaping public expectations

• Diplomatic pressure, ultimatums, or manufactured crises designed to justify action

These signals reveal whether a state is preparing its political landscape for confrontation.

2. Military Readiness and Force Posture

No major operation can occur without adjustments in military posture. These are among the most reliable early warnings:

• Changes in readiness levels across units or commands

• Mobilization of reserve forces

• Unusual or unplanned troop movements

• “Exercises” that mask pre‑positioning of forces

• Repositioning of air defense systems, artillery, or long‑range fires

• Formation of maritime or air task groups

• Deployment of strategic enablers such as ISR platforms, EW assets, airlift, and sealift

These movements are difficult to disguise and often appear weeks or months before action.

3. Logistics, Sustainment, and Infrastructure

Logistics is often the decisive indicator of intent. Analysts monitor:

• Stockpiling of fuel, munitions, and spare parts

• Pre‑positioning of supplies along likely axes of advance

• Surge activity at ports, railheads, and airfields

• Activation of military transport corridors

• Construction or expansion of forward operating bases

• Contracting for civilian transport or commercial lift

These actions are essential prerequisites for sustained operations and are rarely ambiguous.

4. Intelligence, Cyber, and Information Shaping

Before physical movement, states shape the battlespace through informational and technical means:

• Cyber intrusions targeting command, control, or critical infrastructure

• ISR surges to map terrain, defenses, and targets

• Disinformation campaigns to confuse, divide, or intimidate

• Covert influence operations to weaken political cohesion

These activities often appear early in the escalation ladder and help set conditions for later action.

5. Economic and Industrial Mobilization

Sustained conflict requires industrial alignment. Analysts track:

• Increases in defense production

• Emergency procurement or accelerated contracting

• Export controls or resource hoarding

• Financial measures to insulate the economy from sanctions

• Energy stockpiling or rerouting

These indicators reveal whether a state is preparing for prolonged confrontation rather than routine signaling.

6. Alliance Behavior and External Coordination

Major operations often require diplomatic or military alignment with partners. Warning signs include:

• Sudden high‑level consultations

• Joint exercises with unusual scope or timing

• Coordinated messaging across allied capitals

• Requests for basing, access, or overflight

• Pressure on neighbors or client states to remain neutral or supportive

These patterns show whether a state is building the political and operational conditions for escalation.

7. Micro‑Indicators and Ground‑Truth Behaviors

Beyond major movements, analysts track small‑scale, ground‑truth behaviors that, when aggregated, reveal operational intent. These include:

• Equipment deployed for “exercises” that never returns to home garrison

• Units remaining in forward areas long after drills conclude

• Local economic activity showing troops are not preparing to rotate home

• Procurement anomalies near staging areas

• Persistent movement at missile sites or logistics hubs

• Subtle changes in infrastructure construction

• Shifts in media tone or content

Individually, these signals may appear trivial. Together, they form a behavioral map of preparation.

II. Modern I&W: Patterns, Probabilities, and Bias Resistance

Traditional I&W focuses on discrete indicators. Modern I&W focuses on patterns—the clustering of behaviors that historically precede escalation. No single indicator provides certainty; analysts work in probabilities. What matters is whether the pattern of activity aligns with known pathways to conflict.

1. Patterns Over Intent

Analysts do not attempt to read a leader’s mind. They compare current activity to years of historical cases—mobilizations, buildups, coercive signaling—and assess how often similar patterns have led to escalation. Some correlations are weak; others are strong. When enough indicators cluster, the likelihood of action rises sharply.

2. Comprehensive Observation

Traditional intelligence often focuses on known hotspots. Modern I&W requires persistent observation across broad geographies, enabling detection of early signals in regions that may otherwise receive limited attention.

3. Bias Resistance

Human analysts are vulnerable to cognitive biases—anchoring, mirror‑imaging, and assumptions about rationality. Pattern‑based I&W mitigates this by focusing on what states actually do, not what observers believe they “should” do. This prevents analysts from dismissing clear signals simply because the anticipated action seems “irrational” or “unlikely.”

4. Earlier Warning, Expanded Options

Earlier detection expands the freedom of action available to policymakers across diplomatic, informational, military, and economic domains. When warning arrives before a crisis fully forms, leaders have more options to deter, shape, or mitigate outcomes.

III. The Expanding Data Environment and the Future of I&W

The modern world produces more observable activity than ever before. The ubiquity of sensors, the explosion of open‑source information, and the digitization of economic and logistical activity mean that early indicators can now be collected, stored, and analyzed at unprecedented scale.

1. A Digital Nervous System

Early signals—financial anomalies, logistics patterns, weapons flows, infrastructure changes, shifts in media tone—can now be integrated into a coherent picture of emerging risk. This creates something akin to a digital nervous system for national security: a continuous flow of observable behaviors that can reveal gathering threats earlier than traditional methods alone.

2. Earlier Detection Across More Regions

Recent years have shown that early warnings can emerge ahead of:

• Major military demonstrations

• Strategic signaling

• Political instability

• Regional coercion

• Shifts in alliance behavior

In many cases, these signals appeared before conventional intelligence resources were focused on the area.

3. Decision‑Making at the Speed of Relevance

Traditional national‑security processes were designed for deliberation around a table, reacting to events already underway. Modern I&W requires:

• Continuous engagement with early indicators

• Evaluation of probabilistic futures

• Integration of scenario pathways

• Faster policy cycles

Leaders will increasingly confront assessments of what is likely to happen next, not just what is happening now.

4. Human Judgment Remains Central

Structured observation enhances foresight but does not replace human judgment. Analysts must weigh confidence levels, understand the inputs behind assessments, and accept that some predictions will be wrong. Experienced practitioners remain essential as checks and guardrails.

IV. The Strategic Implication

As foresight improves, uncertainty decreases. Policymakers will face pressure to act earlier, with fewer excuses for delay. The challenge ahead is not merely collecting more indicators, but building decision‑making architectures capable of using them effectively.

1. The Emerging Analytic Horizon

The evolution of Indicators and Warning is not only a story of expanding data; it is a story of expanding analytic possibility. As the volume, diversity, and granularity of observable behavior continue to grow, national‑security institutions will increasingly confront patterns that would have been invisible a decade ago. The modern environment produces millions of small signals—movements at remote logistics hubs, procurement anomalies in frontier regions, subtle shifts in local economic activity, changes in infrastructure usage, fluctuations in media tone—that, when viewed in isolation, appear trivial. When aggregated, they can reveal the early architecture of strategic intent.

Recent crises have demonstrated this clearly. In several cases, early warning emerged not from a single dramatic indicator but from the accumulation of small, seemingly unrelated behaviors: equipment that did not return home after “exercises,” officers spending as if they were not rotating back to garrison, unusual activity at missile sites, or quiet shifts in regional air traffic patterns. None of these signals alone would have triggered alarm. Together, they formed a coherent picture of preparation long before traditional assessments reached consensus.

This is the future of I&W: the ability to see patterns before they coalesce into events.

As analytic methods mature, national‑security leaders will increasingly receive assessments that describe not only what is happening, but what is likely to happen next, with confidence levels grounded in historical precedent and real‑time observation. This shift will not replace human judgment; it will demand more of it. Analysts and policymakers will need to understand how patterns were derived, what assumptions underlie them, and where uncertainty remains. They will need to decide which potential futures merit preparation and which can be deprioritized. And they will need to act earlier, with fewer excuses for delay, as the fog that once obscured emerging crises begins to thin.

The strategic implication is profound: the era of being surprised by major state action is ending. The challenge ahead is not whether early warning is possible—it is whether national‑security institutions can adapt their decision‑making architectures to use it effectively.

This article lays the doctrinal foundation. In time, it will be worth returning to how emerging analytic tools—capable of integrating vast streams of micro‑indicators into coherent patterns—may further extend the reach of I&W and reshape how governments anticipate, deter, and respond to geopolitical risk.

Share

NO Russian or Chinese I&W on Greenland Exist

Across every domain of observable preparation—political signaling, force posture, logistics and sustainment, infrastructure activity, cyber operations, economic mobilization, alliance behavior, and micro‑level ground‑truth behaviors—Russia and China show zero Indicators and Warning (I&W) consistent with planning or preparing for an operation against Greenland. There are no troop movements, no pre‑positioning, no stockpiling, no forward basing, no ISR surges, no diplomatic shaping, and no anomalous logistical or infrastructural activity tied to Greenland. The observable record is empty.

Emerging U.S. I&W on Greenland: Early‑Stage, Non‑Kinetic

When the same Indicators and Warning (I&W) framework is applied to the United States, the picture shifts. We cannot confirm military preparation, but the earliest rungs of the I&W ladder are already active, and they are not subtle. These are the political‑environment and information‑shaping indicators that historically precede more formal pressure.

1. Strategic and Political Preparation

The United States has moved beyond abstract interest and into coercive political signaling. President Trump has stated directly that the United States will “take Greenland the easy way or the hard way,” collapsing the distinction between negotiation, pressure, and coercion. He has described the island as “strategically ours,” insisted the U.S. must “take control to safeguard national security,” and framed Denmark’s refusal as “hostile to American interests.”

This is not rhetorical noise. It is political preparation of the environment—delegitimizing the current sovereign, normalizing the idea of U.S. entitlement, and conditioning domestic and allied audiences for the possibility of coercive action.

2. Information Shaping and Influence Activity

U.S. political figures have engaged in direct, uninvited political activity on Greenlandic soil, behavior that would be treated as a major warning indicator in any other geopolitical context.

• Donald Trump Jr. arrived in Greenland without coordination, meeting with individuals he publicly described as “opposition figures.” Local reporting described the visit as last‑minute, unannounced, and politically disruptive, and it appeared to fail in generating the support he implied existed.
  This is not normal behavior for the family of a sitting U.S. president toward a NATO ally’s autonomous territory.

• Vice President J.D. Vance then arrived uninvited, a move without precedent in modern U.S.–NATO relations.
  U.S. Vice Presidents do not simply appear in allied autonomous territories without coordination.
  His presence was widely interpreted as an attempt to pressure local leadership, test political fractures, and signal U.S. willingness to bypass Copenhagen entirely.

These are not routine political visits. They are information‑shaping operations—the early‑stage behaviors that soften the political space, probe for divisions, and test whether local actors can be peeled away from their sovereign.

In I&W terms, this is classic political‑environment preparation:

• elevating alternative voices

• creating the perception of contested authority

• injecting U.S. narratives directly into local politics

• normalizing the idea that Greenland’s status is negotiable

3. Alliance Behavior and Coercive Signaling

Washington has applied sustained geopolitical pressure on Denmark and European partners over Arctic posture. The response has been unusually direct: European leaders have begun to counter‑signal, most notably through President Macron’s visit to Greenland and his pointed public statements affirming European and Danish sovereignty.

Allies do not mobilize diplomatically unless they perceive a trajectory worth countering. Their pushback is itself an indicator.

4. Military, Logistical, and Micro‑Indicators

At the kinetic end of the I&W spectrum, there is no observable evidence that the United States has begun preparing forces for an operation involving Greenland. There are no unusual troop movements, no changes in readiness levels, and no mobilization patterns that would suggest a shift toward contingency planning. Thule Air Base continues to operate as a legacy installation with its long‑standing missions, not as a site of new deployments, pre‑positioning, or expanded activity. Likewise, there are no logistics signatures—no stockpiling of materiel, no activation of transport corridors, no expansion of basing infrastructure—that would indicate preparation for coercive action. The economic and industrial layers remain quiet as well, with no surge in procurement, contracting, or defense‑industrial alignment tied to the Arctic. Even at the micro‑level, where early anomalies often appear first, the picture is still: no persistent units, no anomalous rotations, no local economic shifts around U.S. facilities. In short, the kinetic layers of I&W remain dormant or unobservable.

This is precisely how I&W unfolds in sequence. States do not begin with tanks or troop movements; they begin by reshaping the political and informational terrain. The earliest indicators are always non‑kinetic: delegitimizing the current sovereign, asserting a strategic right to the territory, framing refusal as hostile, and introducing coercive language that normalizes the idea of eventual control. They test allied cohesion, probe for political openings, and increasingly bypass normal diplomatic channels to see what the system will tolerate. Throughout this phase, they watch carefully how partners respond, adjusting their posture based on resistance or acquiescence.

These behaviors do not guarantee future action, but they establish the trajectory along which later indicators—logistics, mobilization, posture changes—would appear if escalation continued. Early‑stage I&W is about direction, not destination.

When the analytic discipline is applied evenly across all actors, the conclusion is unavoidable:

the United States is the only state exhibiting any observable Indicators and Warning related to Greenland’s strategic status.

The indicators are political and informational, not military—but they are real, sequential, and already in motion.

French Deterrence and Denmark’s Immediate Choice

President Macron has already made the essential offer. In his 5 March 2025 speech, he stated plainly that Europe must be ready if the United States is not, and that he had “decided to open the strategic debate on the protection of our allies on the European continent by our deterrent.” That is the French President publicly placing France’s nuclear umbrella on the table for European partners.

He paired this with the equally blunt warning that Europe must be prepared to defend itself “against the United States of America [and] Russia” if necessary.

No European leader has ever spoken with such clarity about the possibility of needing nuclear protection from America.

Conclusion

In light of the growing U.S. I&W directed at Greenland — coercive rhetoric, political interference, uninvited visits by senior figures, and escalating pressure on Copenhagen — the logic is now unavoidable.

Denmark should accept France’s nuclear umbrella immediately.

It is the only credible deterrent available in a scenario where the United States is the source of instability rather than the guarantor against it.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Share

Leave a comment

The Signal Has to Spread

The analysis is mine — the amplification is yours.

If this work matters to you, help it reach the people who need it. Nothing here is backed by institutions, donors, or party machines. It spreads only because readers push it into the world — one share, one repost, one recommendation at a time.

Everything I publish is free because the stakes demand it. But independence has a cost. If you want this analysis to continue — and to cut through the noise — a paid subscription is the strongest way to amplify the signal.

And if a subscription isn’t in the cards, a one‑off tip is always welcome — caffeine and amber nectar help keep the lights on.

Buy this guy a beer

What does UNW Mean?

Unconventional Nuclear Warfare is a play on words. Traditionally warfare has been divided into three major types: unconventional, conventional, and nuclear. Each has a certain “logic” - key patterns that all sides follow. Unconventional warfare is complex and messy. There are no uniforms, no front lines, anyone can be a combatant and so on, think guerrilla / small wars / Vietnam / Afghanistan / Somalia. The vast majority of war throughout history conform to this pattern. Conventional warfare is comparatively straight forward, with clear rules, different sides in uniforms, lined up along lines on a map, and so on, think WWII, Korea, Gulf War. These types of wars are remarkably rare.

Nuclear warfare is the neatest and most simple type of warfare. There is only one rule - any attempt I make to kill the other side will result in my death. The idea being that any use of a nuclear weapon will trigger an ‘escalation ladder’ of bigger and bigger nuclear exchanges inevitably resulting in all-out nuclear warfare where both sides are eliminated. In the movie “War Games” it is represented by Tic, Tac, Toe - where, by definition, there can be no winners.

The problem is this thinking is far too simplistic. Nuclear weapons can be used in unconventional ways that are designed to threaten, but not trigger, the ‘escalation ladder’. In some scenarios, the existence of the ladder makes use of a single nuclear weapon not just plausible, but desirable.

Very few people, even experts, have thought much about unconventional nuclear warfare - where the rules do not conform to the standard logic of Tic Tac Toe. Admiral Chad Richard, the Commander of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), testified to Congress on 8 March 2022 that Putin’s threats have caused USSTRATCOM to learn “a number of lessons in real time on how actual crisis deterrence works. It is different from the steady-state deterrence that most of us have experienced.” This is not reassuring but it points to the largely unaddressed challenges of UNW.

Could Vladimir Putin order the use of a nuclear weapon?: Yes.

Vladimir Putin has repeatedly issued direct nuclear threats before and during the war with Ukraine. This terrifies people and makes nuclear powers hyper cautious not to trigger a threshold. That is his intent. Behind the scenes, where real decision making takes place, the question remains, would he act on this threat? The answer is yes.

Misunderstanding UNW lies in faulty assumptions. There is an assumption that all nuclear weapons are huge and will automatically trigger mutually assured destruction (MAD). That any use of a nuclear weapon is a suicide move. These assumptions are incorrect. This book will explain why. Regrettably, nuclear warfare is much more complicated than that. Certainly, after a certain point, escalation turns MAD. The challenge is to know where that threshold lies. Small nuclear weapons, a fraction of the size of the bombs dropped on Japan, offer the user a powerful tool when used in “onesies and twosies”. Typically when these scenarios arise they are in the context of nuclear terrorism. This is a classic challenge (when a non-state group attacks a state who do you counter-target?) but it is not the only UNW challenge.

Putin is showing that a nuclear state can engage in UNW. The UNW book has some scenarios that look a lot like the current real world UNW challenge posed by Putin. So this stubstack will explore some of these ideas in the hope of raising awareness to a current real world problem.

Background to the project

This substack relates to a book Unconventional Nuclear Warfare (hereafter UNW) that is still in process (the cover of the book is shown above). The project would have been out by now were it not for the Jan 6 insurrection. That threat to US national security had become so dire and pressing the author stopped work on UNW to produce a book on what was behind Jan 6 and where that threat might be headed. That book, Civil War II: From Insurrection to Insurgency, is almost complete and should be out before the 2022 midterms. (The author has also recently published a book on the future of warfare with China, The Third Offset Strategy: A Return to Ungentlemanly Warfare).

I have been concerned about the advent of Unconventional Nuclear Warfare for many years now. My PhD at Cambridge touched on theories of nuclear warfare and I always found them wanting. The binary ‘all or nothing at all’ aspect to the issue was both comforting but also disturbing - especially if you scratched the surface. It was not until President Obama said the following in 2009 (before I entered the DOD WMD world) that I sensed time was running out. Obama said

In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.

This phrasing was a key that unlocked the essence of the issue as I had come to understand it over years of study combined with changes in the global order and ways of pursuing international interests. Little did I know I would one day work at the cutting edge of this challenge and come away from the experience deeply concerned by what I had seen and heard. In short, we are still not prepared to address the challenge President Obama outlined in 2009.

That got me on the long road to this project. I thought I had more time before the challenge would move from theoretical discussion to reality. That I could address the insurrection and return to UNW and get it printed with enough time before events would call for analysis of a real world scenario. Yet here we are. So this substack will try and fill that gap.

Below please find the back-page overview of the book project.

Original Book Summary

Monday, February 24, 2020

In traditional nuclear warfare theory, if one side can eliminate the other without fear of reprisal, then a clear incentive exists to strike first without warning: the ‘bolt from the blue’ attack. Mutually Assured Destruction between the US and Russia ensured strategic stability. But MAD has never existed in any other possible nuclear combination, even between the US and the next greatest nuclear power, China (update: PRC nuclear modernization is rapidly changing that calculus).

National interest in nuclear weapons collapsed after the fall of the Berlin Wall. After the predictable failure to find WMDs in Iraq, the issue was forced underground even within US government agencies responsible for thinking about nuclear war. In the ultimate irony, official US interest in nuclear security is at its nadir just at the time when revisionist powers are imagining entirely new ways to use nuclear weapons.

From a position of economic and military weakness, Russia’s grand strategy is aimed at weakening NATO and the EU through unconventional means imposed incrementally. Agiprop was used historically to spread the communist ideal. Neo-agiprop is not designed to attract adherents to an ideology but to sow division and undermine a competing ideology - democracy. These objectives have been boosted through the innovative use of low-cost, high-impact, direct and indirect combinations of social media manipulation, cyber warfare, and special operations (assassinations including the use of chemical and biological weapons, coups, provocation of identity politics and election interference).

Russian unconventional plans and activities have a nuclear component. Would the US risk all out attack following a single Russian warhead burst over Warsaw? Traditional NATO thinking says Washington would do just that in accordance with its obligations to provide a nuclear umbrella over its allies (in exchange for them not developing their own bombs). But the rise of America First, and the dissolution of democratic institutions at home and abroad have placed such assumptions in jeopardy. Quite possibly, amidst a neo-isolationist America, a divided NATO, and a crumbling EU, the Poles would once again be on their own.

Moscow announced it is developing the Poseidon, a nuclear powered and armed torpedo with a range of 10,000 miles. It is advertised as being able to travel intercontinental distances and is virtually impossible to detect. Washington DC is on a river and New York is in a harbor. The Cuban Missile Crisis turned on missile flight times of 15 mins. The Poseidon represents a destabilizing, stealth, first-strike capability.

Russia is not the only revisionist power rethinking nuclear propaganda, threats and operations. So much debate has raged over Kim Jong Un’s missiles and whether they can fit a nuclear warhead. This is only a matter of time. Moreover one fact is certain, his warheads can fit on a shipping container. Millions of such containers enter the US every day. The government can’t scan them all. The same applies to air shipments. Perhaps the easiest way to deliver a stealth nuclear strike on Washington or New York might be FedEx.

Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are notoriously insecure. Iran does not need to build a bomb when it can slip next door and steal one. Alternatively, a terror group interested in mass killing and spreading fear, need only put some easily obtainable nuclear material on a drone and fly it over the White House. The US Secret Service will obligingly shoot it down, thus aerosolizing its radioactive contents. The materials need not be of high potency. The psychological-political impact of such an operation would fundamentally alter domestic and global politics. Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus; FDR interned Japanese Americans; what might a future president of lesser political sophistication do in response to a nuclear terror strike on the White House? This is the stuff of Vladimir Putin’s wildest dreams.

This book will explore totally new concepts of nuclear warfare for the 21st century, where MAD no longer applies and where official interest in thinking the unthinkable ended long ago.

Share

Freedom Isn’t Free

Almost no one in media, academia, or the think‑tank world can write with the freedom I have. Many know what’s coming but silence themselves out of fear — fear of losing a job, fear of being labeled extreme, fear of calling the moment for what it is. But time is running out.

Every Substack I write is free. I do this because I believe in the Constitution, I see the path to war, and I feel a responsibility to warn.

If you choose to support the work with a subscription, thank you.

And if a subscription is too much, a one‑off tip is always welcome — caffeine and amber nectar help keep the lights on.

I'm Thirsty!

Nuclear signaling is an essential component of deterrence. But like any instrument of coercive diplomacy, it can be overplayed. Signal too frequently, too theatrically, or without a credible trigger, and the message stops conveying resolve and starts advertising weakness.1 From Yeltsin onward, the Russians have been rattling their nuclear saber with greater frequency, urgency and without foundation.2 Each threat becomes more hollow. This pattern is dangerous. When every crisis is framed as existential, adversaries lose the ability to distinguish genuine red lines from performative bluster. The risk is not that Russia will suddenly “go nuclear,” but that in a future crisis a real signal will be lost in the noise—creating the very miscalculation that deterrence is meant to prevent.3

The 2024 Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence states that Russia may use nuclear weapons in response to conventional attacks that

“pose a critical threat to the sovereignty and (or) territorial integrity” or the “destruction of critically important military facilities… the disablement of which would disrupt response actions by nuclear forces."

Putin and his cronies have engaged in a pattern of "red line" proliferation, threatening "ominous" and "unprecedented" consequences for any breach of Russian sovereignty. Yet these pronouncements have repeatedly failed the test of credibility. The more Moscow threatens, the less anyone believes it.4

By 2025, Free-NATO had finally stopped treating this as a strategic mystery and started treating it as a pattern of coercive failure. Following a series of Russian probing/provocations, Admiral Rob Bauer, Chair of the NATO Military Committee, noted in a May 2025 briefing that NATO’s “Integrated Air and Missile Defence” (IAMD) is now authorized to engage unmanned systems violating Allied airspace without prior political clearance.5 This operational hardening was mirrored by a significant diplomatic escalation at the United Nations. On September 22, 2025, Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski delivered a blistering rebuke to the Russian delegation at the UNSC

“I have only one request to the Russian government: if another missile or aircraft enters our airspace without permission, deliberately or by mistake, and gets shot down and the wreckage falls on NATO territory, please don’t come here to whine about it. You have been warned,” the top diplomat said, eyeing the Russian delegation.

In short: the era of F-NATO indulgence of empty Russian bluster is over. NATO now treats Russia’s nuclear theatrics not as evidence of strength, but as the telltale noise of a power running out of leverage—and is responding with steel, not patience.

Nuclear blackmail: 111 threats

1. 2025-06-22Putin Ally Says Countries Now Ready to Supply Iran With Nuclear Weapons

2. 2025-04-29Ukraine-Russia war latest: Putin ally threatens Nato with nuclear strikes in wild speech

3. 2025-04-23Top Russian official says Moscow has right to use nuclear weapons if attacked by West, TASS reports

4. 2025-03-10Russia warns Australia deploying peacekeeping troops to Ukraine would lead to “grave consequences”

5. 2024-11-26Russia’s Medvedev warns West over discussing nuclear weapons for Ukraine

6. 2024-11-19Putin issues warning to United States with new nuclear doctrine

7. 2024-11-19Putin threatens to use nuclear weapons against the West if Ukraine fires US long-range missiles on Russian soil

8. 2024-11-18Russia threatens UK with ‘nuclear war by Christmas’ in chilling WW3 warning

9. 2024-10-27Putin Says Hopes West ‘Heard’ Warning Over Long-Range Strikes

10. 2024-10-27Putin threatens ‘range of responses’ if Ukraine strikes deep into Russia

11. 2024-09-27Putin draws a nuclear red line for the West

12. 2024-09-26Putin issues nuclear warning to the West over strikes on Russia from Ukraine

13. 2024-09-19Putin ally warns West of nuclear war over Ukraine

14. 2024-09-14Putin draws new red line on long-range missiles

15. 2024-09-13Don’t forget Russia is a nuclear power, says UN ambassador

16. 2024-09-06Russia MP claims Putin will give Brits ’three days to leave UK’ before using ’atomic’ tsunami

17. 2024-06-21Putin Threatens Nuclear Response if West Bolsters Ukraine Support

18. 2024-06-20Russia considering changes to nuclear doctrine, Putin claims

19. 2024-06-06Putin warns he could provide weapons to attack the West and issues new nuclear threat

20. 2024-05-12Putin Ally Threatens NATO Countries With ‘Special Ammunition’

21. 2024-05-10Belarus dictator Lukashenko admits he is ‘bonkers’ and has no ‘red lines’ as he threatens the West with nukes and warns ’we are closer than ever to nuclear catastrophe’

22. 2024-05-10Putin hires hardline professor who suggested nuking Europe to ‘test NATO’s resolve’ for Kremlin role ‘deterring the West’

23. 2024-05-09Putin Renews Nuclear Threats Against West at Military Parade

24. 2024-05-06Russia announces nuclear weapon drills after angry exchange with Western officials

25. 2024-05-06Medvedev warns of nuclear attacks on European capitals in case of sending troops to Ukraine

26. 2024-04-17Ukraine May Have Just Crossed Putin’s Nuclear Red Line

27. 2024-03-18Putin warns the West a Russia-NATO conflict is just one step from World War Three

28. 2024-03-14Putin warns the West: Russia is ready for nuclear war
    2024-02-29Putin threatens NATO with nuclear strike if it sends troops to Ukraine

29. 2024-02-28Russia prepared for nuclear attack on China, leaked papers reveal

30. 2024-02-18Russia’s Medvedev threatens to nuke US, UK, Germany, Ukraine

31. 2024-01-17Russia-US relations ‘teetering on brink of abyss’, ambassador to US says

32. 2024-01-11Medvedev warns of nuclear response if Ukraine hits missile launch sites

33. 2023-11-16Russia loads missile with nuclear-capable glide vehicle into launch silo

34. 2023-11-06Russian Official Issues Nuclear Weapons Warning After Historic Achievement

35. 2023-10-30Western policy towards Russia threatens military clash between nuclear powers — Shoigu

36. 2023-10-20American-led world sliding headfirst into deepest abyss, Medvedev says

37. 2023-10-05Russia’s retaliatory nuclear strike to leave enemy with no chances of survival — Putin

38. 2023-07-30Russia’s Medvedev: We’d have to use a nuclear weapon if Ukrainian offensive was a success

39. 2023-07-13Russia to view F-16 fighter jets in Ukraine as threat in nuclear sphere - Lavrov

40. 2023-07-03Russia’s Medvedev says standoff with West to last decades, Ukraine conflict ’permanent’

41. 2023-06-25There is no choice left: Russia will have to launch a nuclear strike on Europe

42. 2023-06-21US, NATO’s aggressive policies may result in clash between nuclear powers

43. 2023-06-16Vladimir Putin delivers keynote address at St Petersburg forum

44. 2023-05-26Russia’s Medvedev warns West is underestimating risks of nuclear escalation over Ukraine

45. 2023-05-23Russia’s Medvedev: Western arms for Ukraine make ‘nuclear apocalypse’ more likely

46. 2023-05-04Putin Allies Split Over Using Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine

47. 2023-04-25Russia warns again that risks of nuclear confrontation with US growing

48. 2023-04-25Putin ally: We are probably on verge of a new world war

49. 2023-04-05Russia, US are in hot conflict phase — senior diplomat

50. 2023-03-27Putin ally says Russia has weapons to destroy US if its existence is threatened

51. 2023-03-26Putin says Moscow to place nuclear weapons in Belarus, US reacts cautiously

52. 2023-03-23Any attempt to arrest Putin would be declaration of war on Russia, ally says

53. 2023-03-22Russia says risk of nuclear conflict at highest level in decades

54. 2023-02-27Russia’s Medvedev says arms supplies to Kyiv threaten global nuclear catastrophe

55. 2023-02-23Ukraine defends front, Putin talks up nuclear arsenal on war anniversary eve

56. 2023-02-22Russia’s war on Ukraine latest: Putin gives nuclear warning, Biden rallies allies

57. 2023-02-04Russia’s Medvedev says more U.S. weapons supplies mean ‘all of Ukraine will burn’

58. 2023-01-19Putin ally warns NATO of nuclear war if Russia is defeated in Ukraine

59. 2022-12-25Only Russia’s nuclear arms preventing West from declaring war - Putin ally

60. 2022-12-09Russia may borrow US idea of disarming strike — Putin

61. 2022-12-05Russia’s Lavrov: NATO policy risks ‘direct clash’ between nuclear powers

62. 2022-11-30Russia says it will focus on building nuclear arms infrastructure in 2023

63. 2022-11-17Russia is not considering using nuclear weapons - Kremlin says

64. 2022-11-02Russia: West must stop ‘encouraging provocations’ to avoid nuclear disaster

65. 2022-10-18Russia says seized Ukrainian lands are under its nuclear protection

66. 2022-10-13Russian official warns of World War Three if Ukraine joins NATO

67. 2022-10-05Ukraine can be defeated with a nuclear strike on the United States - Fedorov

68. 2022-10-01Kadyrov says Russia should use low-yield nuclear weapon

69. 2022-09-27Medvedev raises spectre of Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine

70. 2022-09-23Moscow ‘not threatening anyone’ with nuclear weapons

71. 2022-09-22Russia’s Medvedev: new regions can be defended with strategic nuclear weapons

72. 2022-09-21Ex-Putin adviser warns UK cities could be hit with nuclear weapons if Britain ‘continues to be aggressor’

73. 2022-09-21Putin escalates Ukraine war, issues nuclear threat to West

74. 2022-08-18Russia says nuclear weapons use possible only in ‘emergency circumstances’

75. 2022-08-12‘Accidents can happen at European nuclear plants too’, Russian ex-president says

76. 2022-08-01Putin says no one can win a nuclear war

77. 2022-07-17Russia’s Medvedev: Attack on Crimea will ignite ‘Judgement Day’ response

78. 2022-07-06Russia’s Medvedev warns United States: messing with a nuclear power is folly

79. 2022-05-12Russia says Finnish entry to NATO poses threat to which it will respond

80. 2022-05-10On possible nuclear strike, Russia says: it’s all in our military doctrine

81. 2022-05-06Russian will not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, foreign ministry says

82. 2022-04-30Russia says risks of nuclear war must be kept to minimum, TASS reports

83. 2022-04-25Russia’s Lavrov: Do not underestimate threat of nuclear war

84. 2022-04-24Russia warns of nuclear, hypersonic deployment if Sweden and Finland join NATO

85. 2022-03-22Kremlin spokesman: Russia would use nuclear weapons only in case of ‘threat to existence of state’

86. 2022-02-28‘You’ll face consequences greater than any in history’: Putin warns West

87. 2022-02-28‘Why Do We Need a World if Russia Is Not In It?’: State TV Presenter Opens Show With Ominous Address

88. 2022-02-27Putin nuclear alert order part of pattern of made-up threats, U.S. says

89. 2022-02-27Putin puts nuclear deterrent on alert; West squeezes Russian economy
    
    Russia Invades Ukraine 2022-02-24

90. 2022-02-24EU says Putin’s ominous threat to those who hinder him marks ‘critical moment’

91. 2021-12-13Russia says it may be forced to deploy mid-range nuclear missiles in Europe

92. 2019-02-25After Putin’s warning, Russian TV lists nuclear targets in U.S.

93. 2019-02-21Putin to U.S.: I’m ready for another Cuban Missile-style crisis if you want one

94. 2019-02-20Putin threatens to target US if it deploys missiles in nearby European countries

95. 2018-12-20Putin warns the threat of nuclear war should not be underestimated

96. 2018-10-24Russia will target European countries if they host U.S. nuclear missiles: Putin

97. 2015-05-27Nato chief says Russian nuclear threats are ‘deeply troubling and dangerous’

98. 2015-03-22Russia threatens to aim nuclear missiles at Denmark ships if it joins NATO shield

99. 2014-09-01Russia Has Threatened Nuclear Attack, Says Ukraine Defense Minister

100. 2014-07-11Russia Threatens Nuclear Strikes Over Crimea

101. 2014-05-14Rogozin: Next time I will fly the Tu-160 (nuclear bomber)

102. 2014-03-16Russia can turn US to radioactive ash - Kremlin-backed journalist
     
     Russia Invades Ukraine (Crimea) 2014-02-20

103. 2012-04-04NATO - Russia talk of pre-emptive strike unjustified

104. 2012-03-23Medvedev calls missile defense a threat to Russia

105. 2011-11-23Russia in Europe missile threat

106. 2010-12-01Russia’s Putin warns West over missile defense: report

107. 2009-10-13Russia reserves pre-emptive nuclear strike right

108. 2008-08-15Moscow warns it could strike Poland over US missile shield

109. 2008-02-13Putin issues nuclear threat to Ukraine over plan to host US shield

110. 2007-04-11Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence

111. 1999-12-10Yeltsin gives US nuclear warning

All I ask is that you spread the word. Thank you.

No one in media, universities, or think tanks has the freedom to write as I do. Many are thinking these things but censor themselves to keep their jobs or out of fear that the conclusion is too extreme to call. Time is of the essence.

All my substacks are free. I am doing this work because I believe in the constitution, I can see we are headed for war, and I feel an obligation to warn.

Of course I am very grateful to those who choose to directly support my work. If a subscription is too much of a burden, I never turn down a beer! Thanks :)

I never turn down a beer!

Share

Washington DC 7 May 2025

from POGO's Mark Thompson

The U.S. government plans to spend $946 billion through 2034 to buy and operate the nation’s nuclear weapons. That’s a 25% hike over 2023’s estimated cost for the decade ending in 2032, the Congressional Budget Office reported April 24. And that 2023 cost of $756 billion was $122 billion more (19%) than the 2021 projection. Let’s call it ICBMnflation.

The latest estimate includes $357 billion to operate the nukes we’ve got, and $309 billion to buy new ones and the platforms — largely subs, bombers and missiles — to deliver them. That doesn’t include all of the stunning 81% cost growth associated with the troubled Sentinel ICBM program now under development (and it’s getting worse). CBO estimates the U.S. will also spend $79 billion improving command and control of its nuclear forces over the coming decade, and $72 billion for upgrades to its nuclear-weapon labs.

CBO also is padding the cost estimates of the Pentagon and Department of Energy (which builds the nation’s nuclear weapons) by $129 billion. “That amount represents CBO’s estimate of additional costs that would be incurred over the 2025–2034 period if the costs for nuclear programs grew at roughly the same rates that costs for similar programs have grown in the past,” the CBO report said (taxpayers might ask why the Defense Department doesn’t do that on its own).

This insane spending on weapons that no sane person wants fired is taking place as the U.S., China, and Russia are engaged in a stubborn showdown over the size and shape of their nuclear arsenals. “There’s no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons,” Trump said in February. “You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.”

Stop dilly-dallying and start doing, Mr. President, before it’s too late.

French President Emmanuel Macron has delivered a wartime speech to rival any made since Churchill. Never before has the western alliance faced an existential threat from within. President Macron deftly explains why and how this new shocking reality must be addressed (while leaving the door open for America to stop the madness). I want to believe that the United States will remain at our side, but we must be ready if this is not the case.

President Macron honestly confronts the fact that America has joined Russia to become a threat to the free world. His response? It is now up to Europe to take decisive action to defend itself from both America and Russia. He understand the only concrete way to defend against this threat in the short term is nuclear weapons. Accordingly, he offers to extend the French nuclear deterrent to the rest of Europe. This is stunning leadership fit for an unimaginable moment.

Here is the core of his magnificent 5 March 2025 speech edited to its essentials:

Russia has become a threat to France and to Europe…for years to come. If one country can invade its neighbour in Europe with impunity, then no one can be sure of anything any more, and the law of the strongest will apply.

I want to believe that the United States will remain at our side, but we must be ready if this is not the case.

Europe has the economic strength, the power and the talent … to take on the United States of America [and] Russia. So we must act as one, as Europeans, and we must be determined to protect ourselves.

I have decided to open the strategic debate on the protection of our allies on the European continent by our deterrent.

He also discusses “massive” increases in defense spending in France and across the Union that has been freed from “being taken into account in their deficit”. He has ordered his government to “speed up the reindustrialisation of all our regions”.

The President ends with a clarion call to the values of the enlightenment upon which the French and American Republics are founded. So many leaders forget this essential step - to outline the stakes of the challenge and why we must fight. Macron does this beautifully.

This is what we stand for and what is at stake: to defend democracy, a certain idea of truth, a certain idea of free research, of respect in our societies, a certain idea of freedom of expression that is not the return of hate speech, basically, a certain idea of humanism.

In other words, total and utter repudiation of everything for which Trump declares he stands. The phrasing subtly exposes the threat Trump presents to the US Republic and the world.

Background

France and Britain insisted on acquiring nuclear weapons to maintain a semblance of their prestige as former imperial powers and to maintain access to the high table of world affairs. What started as an anachronistic and ludicrously expensive folly (the UK did not pay off its WWII debt until 2006) has suddenly become a strategic vision of unparalleled prescience. Particularly in France's case. President De Gaulle stirred consternation insisting on a completely independent system. Britain on the other hand, wisely shared costs and burdens with a wealthy steadfast ally. That made tremendous sense until they chose to become an enemy of the free world.

In offering to discuss extending France's nuclear deterrent, the president was at pains to note that nuclear command and control will remain sovereign and

Whatever happens, the decision has always been, and will remain, in the hands of the President of the Republic, the head of the armed forces.

Since the historic speech, President Macron announced the reactivation of nuclear forces at an airbase on the German border planned for 2035. As we will see, this is likely signalling if not prepositioning for a deployment over the border much sooner. Famed as the airbase used by the Escadrille Americaine volunteers in WWI (more signalling), Luxeuil-Saint-Sauveur, will become home to a part of the airborne deterrent consisting of two squadrons of the future F5-standard Rafale fighter jet carrying the ASN4G, airborne hypersonic missile (Range: 1000km @ Mach 7).

Currently, the French Air and Space Force has three air bases equipped with secure weapons storage for nuclear missiles: Saint-Dizier, Istres, and Avord. These bases host roughly 50 two-seat Rafale Bs, which are armed with ASMP-A supersonic missiles and are supported by a fleet of Airbus A330 MRTT Phénix aerial refueling tankers.

President Macron made his announcement on his way to Germany, and on the day Trump talks with Putin.

Implications

After a long hiatus nuclear weapons are suddenly front and center. The reason is simple. America has joined Russia as a global aggressor state. The only check on its power is nuclear weapons. Secondarily, removal of America's extended deterrence from allies all over the world will force some to proliferate. France extending deterrence is a far better option under the circumstances.

This is not the first time France has offered its deterrent to Europe. This has been discussed in various forms for years. In 1964 de Gaulle said that France would consider itself threatened if, for example, the USSR attacked Germany. Most recently raised by President Marcon in 2020 and repeated in 2024. These offers have been routinely ignored by Europe.

However, under the American umbrella armed with a triad of forces, the French deterrent, consisting of the air launched hypersonic missies and one SSBM at sea at any point in time, seemed superfluous. Now it is vital and urgent.

The Munich Crisis 2025 Edition

The tipping point for Europe was the Trump regime’s bizarre and insulting performance at this year’s Munich conference. It was a repetition of Putin's famous declaration of hybrid war against Europe in 2007. This was followed by the attempted coup de grâce against President Zelinsky in the Oval office.

Trump regime loathing for Europe and the global order was not exactly hidden. Subtle these people are not. However the “Signal” crisis at the top of the US national security world has blown the lid off any pretense that anything to do with the Trump regime is normal. The crisis has many facets. Importantly for this discussion, it revealed the inner most thoughts of American “leaders” about our most important allies.

It should be clear, these people will not come to Europe’s aid in a crisis. Indeed, they evidentially would enjoy it if Europe were to suffer even more than is already the case (war in Ukraine). These people have a particular predilection for cruelty, capped by Adam Sewers famous summation of their raison d'etre “the cruelty is the point”.

The command and control of combat operations on an app is a crisis of the first order. It was made worse by many factors, not the least of which is they were using their personal phones, and one of their number was in Moscow while the operation was being live reported.

US national security principals are provided with convenient mobile classified communication systems. They deliberately avoided them for a simple reason. By law, even classified systems become part of the official record. So if you use your private phone, there will be no record of how you got to the decision. In other words, they deliberately flouted the law. Surprise! This is SOP from the crime ridden Trump regime (see all the court cases currently underway that they are simply ignoring). By their own admission, and as common sense would suggest, they are using Signal for all manner of classified chat groups. Personally, I'd like to see the “Canada Hybrid War” small PC or the “US non-response to a Moscow tactical nuke on Kiev"group chats. But don't worry, Moscow is watching all of it. Can you hear the Champagne bottles popping?

The irony here is obvious. Had they used official systems, what happened would have been saved from scrutiny for 30 years at a minimum, not on the evening news.

France is not alone

France has not been the only European government to completely change its outlook virtually overnight.

The gloves have come off in Berlin. Government debt has understandably been a sensitive topic since the Weimar Republic. In a historically momentus development, even before taking office, Friedrich Merz, Chancellor-elect of Germany, achieved a two-thirds majority vote to amend its constitution cancelling the “debt break” set at just 0.35% of GDP (US debt exceed 100%).

Merz announced “Germany is back” calling the package “a clear message to our partners … but also to the enemies of our freedom: we are capable of defending ourselves”. Accompanying the constitutional change, Germany technically now has unlimited defense spending at its disposal. Already upwards of a trillion USD has been touted as the likely first tranche of spending.

Merz did not stop there. Acknowledging President Macrons efforts, Merz announced “we have to talk to the British and French whether their nuclear protection could also be extended to us”. Merz, like Macron, appears to be the right leader for the moment.

To anyone familiar with the history of the 20th Century, all of these changes are simply stunning. Hopefully they will have the intended effect in Moscow and Washington.

Practicalities

It has been said that for Franco-German nuclear plans to work, President Macron needs to invite partners to support French deterrence training and exercises and engage in other measures leading to some kind of integrated planning process. All of this has been offered by France. Of course, as the president said, the decision remains his and his alone. However, the reality of the Russian threat is such that Germany occupied by Russia would destroy the way of life across Europe. De Gaulle understood that in 1964. If the only way to prevent that is the deterrent then it must be offered and sincerely and soon.

Finally, some argue that with just ~200 warheads France is only capable of limited nuclear war. This is true. But it does offer one thing other countries cannot - nuclear war. The prospect of losing Moscow and St Petersburg remains the same whether it involves 2 warheads or 10. Can Russia be eradicated completely? No. A limited deterrent is sufficient here and moreover it is vastly superior to the alternatives - none at all or being reliant on conventional forces alone. I would make one note. As the Ukrainian's have proven, a small, agile and capable conventional force can route the warmonger. If you add NATO conventional forces to that ledger it will be Russia reaching for a nuclear weapon to ensure the regime does not fall. Not the other way around.

War Plan for Europe

A sister publication to this one has written a post-America war plan for Europe. It provides a brief outline of key steps Europe can take for its own defense. Notably, it was written before President Macron’s speech and argues that other countries should accept France's offer as a matter of priority.

Military Innovation Lab

Europe Needs to Ditch America

Washington DC 25 FEB 2025…

Read more

a year ago · 109 likes · 9 comments · Adam's 4 Security Stacks

Canada and Greenland

In a related work by the same publication, we examine what is behind Trump's ceaseless threats against Canada and Denmark. This is not 'Trump being Trump'. Its not entertainment. Its deadly serious. Trump is engaging in exactly the kind of hybrid war that Putin has mounted against his neighbors like Georgia and Ukraine. The article explores the 10-step hybrid warfare program and ends with suggesting the UK should extend its deterrence to Canada. Likewise, Denmark should accept France’s offer - leaving the question of whether extended deterrence covers Greenland as usefully ambiguous.

Military Innovation Lab

🇺🇸US USING PUTIN'S 10 STEP HYBRID WAR PLAYBOOK

Washington DC 24 March 2025…

Read more

a year ago · 79 likes · 19 comments · Adam's 4 Security Stacks

Asia

The situation in Europe points to the high and rapidly growing risk of nuclear proliferation in other regions that previously relied on the US umbrella. The most dynamic of these of course is Asia. With six security treaty countries dependant on US protection, one of whom, Korea, has already been champing at the bit to get its own deterrent. The idea that American extended deterrence remains credible flies in the face of US threats to its nearest and dearest ally Canada.

Our sister publication, the Thirdoffset Strategy, will be releasing a post-America war plan for Asia to cope with the implications in that region of America's capitulation to Russia. It argues, despite contrary indicators (trade war), that America will likely be manipulated into full Axis membership demanding a new relationship with China. This will be a shock in that region every bit as bad as those noted above for Europe, and will trigger equally intense responses including nuclear proliferation but at a speed unexpected by all but insiders.

The Third Offset Strategy

ASIA WARNING

Washington DC 3 March 2025…

Read more

a year ago · 17 likes · 1 comment · The National Security Desk

Conclusion

Europe and the world are lucky to have President Macron and Chancellor-elect Merz in their roles at this critical moment. Europe has the capability to come together and resist Russian and American aggression. Nuclear weapons are going to play an essential role in this crisis. Innovative and unconventional concepts of operations will have to be designed on the fly by the French and British. They are up to it. Below is something I have never seen before. Publicity for a British Prime Minister touring a nuclear deterrent SSBN just back from a long patrol.

I got the message.

Do you think Trump did?

This Substack is a public service. I do not make a cent from it. All I ask is this: if you found it of value please restack it - spread it far and wide. We have to get the word out before its too late.

Share

Subscribe now

Washington DC 14 FEB 2025

BREAKING NEWS

• 325 staff fired from the US nuclear security enterprise

• Which agencies?

• NNSA - National Nuclear Security Agency under the Dept of Energy

• Related National Laboratories

• Who is effected?

• 325 employees fired (likely probationers)

• Classic Friday night gold hidden in a “throw out the trash” story

Likely staff on new employee probation. This is maga / DOGE SOP across all agencies. Probationers are low hanging fruit and easy to fire, compared to employees who have successfully completed probation and have become regular civil servants.

DOGE has plans for them too, if they have not taken the “buy-out”.

Why it matters?

What the shocking headline doesn't tell you is how hard it is, and how long it takes, to get the right people to become stewards of our nuclear weapons.

The work done at the NNSA and related National Laboratories is literally the continuation of the Manhattan Project.

It requires at least two very high bars to be met.

1. People who can gain the Q (or L) nuclear clearance, usually along side a TS-SCI.1

Unsurprisingly, being able to access the nation’s nuclear secrets requires the most stringent security clearance process, potentially taking up to a year or longer per candidate.2

2. People with a minimum of a masters degree in their field of expertize - typically in this case nuclear engineering.

This isn't Walmart. We are not talking about unskilled labor that is easily replaced. On top of all the physics, you can now add the challenges of AI as well as global strategy where MAD rarely aplies between multiple states who all pose an existential threat.

The minimum level of expertize required for most of these positions is likely to be a Masters degree in nuclear engineering (and related fields) from a top university. A proportion of this new crop of staff, maybe as many as 20% if not more, will have PhDs.

Throughput

All organizations, government or civilian, depend on a regular pattern of employee throughput to account for natural attrition. The harder the skillset and the higher the clearances required, the tougher the challenge it is to keep inputs at or above outputs.

Going full Pol Pot against expertize is not smart policy in general, and breathtakingly dangerous when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Just one years pause will have catastrophic effects on our ability to maintain nuclear stockpile surety.3

Why is this happening?

Either DOGE does not understand this category is different to all the others. Or this is a purposeful attempt to undermine America's most grave national security challenges.

Ask who benrfits from this act?

I can guarantee you it is not the American people or our national security. You can almost hear the champagne corks popping in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang.

What do all those capitals have in common?

They have all been courted by the Trump Administration.

Which capitals have been under constant criticusm and pressure?

Paris, Berlin, London, Warsaw and Kiev.

Ask yourselves why.4

Share

Newsweek has most information at this early stage. Quotes follow

The Trump administration is seeking layoffs that could cut up to 2,000 Energy Department employees, two sources familiar with the decision told Reuters. The department employs approximately 14,000 federal workers and oversees 95,000 contractors across various energy and security sectors.

One source revealed that approximately 325 employees have been dismissed from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons fleet and works to secure radiological materials worldwide.

However, another source said those layoffs have been "partly rescinded"—mainly for essential nuclear security workers. It remains unclear how many of the 325 firings were rescinded.

A letter sent to some employees and seen by Reuters said: "DOE finds that your further employment would not be in the public interest. For this reason, you are being removed from your position with DOE and the federal civil service effective today.”

Democratic lawmakers confirmed to the outlet that the layoffs also impact workers at national laboratories, hydroelectric plants and Cold War-era nuclear sites. According to two sources, the layoffs followed the arrival of three representatives from billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) at the agency.

Another 45 employees from the Loans Programs Office also were reportedly dismissed. The office oversees the disbursement of hundreds of billions of dollars in loans for clean energy, nuclear and clean vehicle projects.

UPDATE

Reports say the NNSA is trying to rehire the fired staff but cant find them. Did they lose their applications and security clearances with their personal contact information? Its just ludicrous.

The USG is a tiny bit more complicated than a basic website spewing short messages of extremists. You can't cut it to the bone, then sit back and watch it crash in order to work out which parts are important.

Mark my words, there is going to be a nuclear event under this administration. When you destabilize government, increase the cognitive load on those already managing complex systems, and play games with the surety of weapons of mass destruction, along with the safe and secure operation of nuclear power, luck can only take you so far.

The safety, security and wealth of 320m people (and indirectly billions of others) is NOT A SIMULATION.

It is the work of serious people with real qualitications, and decades of experience.

America is spiraling. These problems are visible to the public. What cant we see? If the nuclear enterprise is compromised many people will die. Running a superpower is not a game.

Washington DC 30 May 2024

2024 is a year of living dangerously. Nearly have of the world’s population will cast their votes in elections this year. A number of democracies are in the balance, including the United States.

Russians are masters of propaganda. They have convinced the free world that democracy is not all that it’s cracked up to be and that autocracy is preferable because it is efficient and preserves “traditional values”. Recent polling among 28 democracies found that the following themes of Russian propaganda have taken root:

• Society is broken - 57%

• The country is in decline - 58%

• The economy is rigged to advantage elites - 67%

• The country needs a strongman willing to “break the rules” - 49%

  • in order to “take the country back” 63%

Reducing their enemies Will by sowing doubt through propaganda is far more cost effective than war. They might really hit the jackpot if an enemy is so radicalized it turns on itself or its allies.

To keep international military pressure off their failing genocidal war in Ukraine, the Russians have kept up a steady drum beat of ominous threats of military escalation. Western states have taken these seriously, being very careful to stay under what they think might be Russian thresholds that would trigger a direct confrontation with Moscow.

Russian propaganda has worked. The West been deterred from the most effective forms of assisting Ukraine. 800+ days into the 3 day war and the West is only now allowing Ukraine to use certain munitions in operationally relevant ways - in other words to use their long range precision systems to strike back at their attacker across the border into Russia.

In the past 20 years of American led expeditionary warfare, America never publicly threatened the use of nuclear weapons to get its way. Some accounts have reported a private conversation a few days after 9/11 when the US Secretary of State implied to the Pakistani President, Gen Musharraf, America might consider nuclear weapons if Pakistan did not allow US access to its territory to get to landlocked Afghanistan. That is a far cry from now routine public declarations concerning the use of the ultimate threat.

Even before they launched their second invasion into Ukraine, the Russians issued a preventative nuclear threat. This revealed their concern about their weakness to NATO retaliation. The fact that the nuclear drumbeat has continued ever since has seriously diminished the deterrent and only further highlighted their vulnerabilities.

UNW has explained that Russia could have put the retaliatory escalation burden on the US by using a single small nuclear weapon. Had the US not responded in kind, Moscow would have a green light to do whatever it wanted. Alternatively, a nuclear response would have aimed to deescalate any further Russian response. To achieve that it would have had to be of a certain size and target set that complicated Russian decision making. Thats the military theory. The global political reality would have been like the world’s response to Israel’s war on Hamas on steroids. Everyone would have condemned the US - not Russia! Russia would have then had a choice whether to escalate a further step - a nuclear attack on NATO forces in a build-up area in Poland perhaps. The whole thing unravels from that point forward. So an initial US conventional response would have been chosen and that weakness would have greatly aided Russia.

It is not until you see all of Russia’s nuclear threats in historical context that their intent becomes clear. It has been propaganda all along. And why not? That is their true strong suit and really it is all they have. They were not going to use unconventional nuclear warfare. That was too bold, even for Putin. If his personal back is against the wall then he would likely issue the order. Whether it would be followed at that point is another discussion. Likely not if Hitlers orders at the same point in time are anything to go by.

Putting their nuclear propaganda in context opens the door to another realization. Not only were they never going to use the weapon, the more they issued nuclear threats the more they proved their weakness to the world. It is the proverbial ‘boy who cried wolf’.

UNW recently found a consolidated list that puts Putin’s nuclear propaganda shell game into perspective. This is not even a new development. Tellingly, they have used it a few times before the Ukraine invasion and then abused the technique since then to the point of irrelevance.

Russia is weak. It is losing. The only way for the Putin regime to survive is for the triumph of his strategic propaganda plan - where his allies re-take the Oval Office and Congress and hand Ukraine to him on a platter.

Trump has encouraged Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” with Ukraine. Prior to that position, he pretended to have a master plan for peace.

“As president, I will bring back peace through strength," Trump said. "I would have a peace deal negotiated within 24 hours."

The only way that can be achieved is giving it to Russia.

"I know Zelenskyy very well... I would tell Zelenskyy, ‘No more. You got to make a deal.’ I will have the deal done in one day. One day," Trump responded.

Putin responded

“We surely hear that Mr. Trump says he will resolve all burning issues within several days, including the Ukrainian crisis. We cannot help but feel happy about it.”

This points to another key factor in nuclear saber rattling from Moscow. Why would you risk nuclear war when your allies will just give you the win?

The List

This list is hot-linked to relevant articles. Hat tip to Vatniksoup for pulling this altogether.

1. 12.05.2024Putin Ally Threatens NATO Countries With ’Special Ammunition’

2. 10.05.2024Belarus dictator Lukashenko admits he is ’bonkers’ and has no ’red lines’ as he threatens the West with nukes and warns ’we are closer than ever to nuclear catastrophe’

3. 10.05.2024Putin hires hardline professor who suggested nuking Europe to ’test NATO’s resolve’ for Kremlin role ’deterring the West’06.05.2024Russia announces nuclear weapon drills after angry exchange with Western officials

4. 06.05.2024Medvedev warns of nuclear attacks on European capitals in case of sending troops to Ukraine

5. 17.04.2024Ukraine May Have Just Crossed Putin’s Nuclear Red Line

6. 24.03.2024Putin warns the West: Russia is ready for nuclear war

7. 29.02.2024Putin threatens NATO with nuclear strike if it sends troops to Ukraine

8. 28.02.2024Russia prepared for nuclear attack on China, leaked papers reveal

9. 18.02.2024Russia’s Medvedev threatens to nuke US, UK, Germany, Ukraine

10. 17.01.2024Russia-US relations 'teetering on brink of abyss,' ambassador to US says

11. 11.01.2024Medvedev warns of nuclear response if Ukraine hits missile launch sites

12. 16.11.2023Russia loads missile with nuclear-capable glide vehicle into launch silo

13. 06.11.2023Russian Official Issues Nuclear Weapons Warning After Historic Achievement

14. 30.10.2023Western policy towards Russia threatens military clash between nuclear powers — Shoigu

15. 20.10.2023American-led world sliding headfirst into deepest abyss, Medvedev says

16. 05.10.2023Russia’s retaliatory nuclear strike to leave enemy with no chances of survival — Putin

17. 30.07.2023Russia’s Medvedev: We’d have to use a nuclear weapon if Ukrainian offensive was a success

18. 13.07.2023Russia to view F-16 fighter jets in Ukraine as threat in nuclear sphere - Lavrov

19. 03.07.2023Russia’s Medvedev says standoff with West to last decades, Ukraine conflict ’permanent’

20. 25.06.2023There is no choice left: Russia will have to launch a nuclear strike on Europe

21. 21.06.2023US, NATO’s aggressive policies may result in clash between nuclear powers

22. 16.06.2023Vladimir Putin delivers keynote address at St Petersburg forum

23. 26.05.2023Russia’s Medvedev warns West is underestimating risks of nuclear escalation over Ukraine

24. 23.05.2023Russia’s Medvedev: Western arms for Ukraine make ’nuclear apocalypse’ more likely

25. 04.05.2023Putin Allies Split Over Using Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine

26. 25.04.2023Russia warns again that risks of nuclear confrontation with US growing

27. 25.04.2023Putin ally: We are probably on verge of a new world war

28. 05.04.2023Russia, US are in hot conflict phase — senior diplomat

29. 27.03.2023Putin ally says Russia has weapons to destroy US if its existence is threatened

30. 26.03.2023Putin says Moscow to place nuclear weapons in Belarus, US reacts cautiously

31. 23.03.2023Any attempt to arrest Putin would be declaration of war on Russia, ally says

32. 22.03.2023Russia says risk of nuclear conflict at highest level in decades

33. 27.02.2023Russia’s Medvedev says arms supplies to Kyiv threaten global nuclear catastrophe

34. 23.02.2023Ukraine defends front, Putin talks up nuclear arsenal on war anniversary eve

35. 22.02.2023Russia’s war on Ukraine latest: Putin gives nuclear warning, Biden rallies allies

36. 04.02.2023Russia’s Medvedev says more U.S. weapons supplies mean ’all of Ukraine will burn’

37. 19.01.2023Putin ally warns NATO of nuclear war if Russia is defeated in Ukraine

38. 25.12.2022Only Russia’s nuclear arms preventing West from declaring war - Putin ally

39. 09.12.2022Russia may borrow US idea of disarming strike — Putin

40. 05.12.2022Russia’s Lavrov: NATO policy risks ’direct clash’ between nuclear powers

41. 30.11.2022Russia says it will focus on building nuclear arms infrastructure in 2023

42. 17.11.2022Russia is not considering using nuclear weapons - Kremlin says

43. 02.11.2022Russia: West must stop ’encouraging provocations’ to avoid nuclear disaster

44. 18.10.2022Russia says seized Ukrainian lands are under its nuclear protection

45. 13.10.2022Russian official warns of World War Three if Ukraine joins NATO

46. 05.10.2022Ukraine can be defeated with a nuclear strike on the United States - Fedorov

47. 01.10.2022Kadyrov says Russia should use low-yield nuclear weapon

48. 27.09.2022Medvedev raises spectre of Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine

49. 23.09.2022Moscow “not threatening anyone” with nuclear weapons

50. 22.09.2022Russia’s Medvedev: new regions can be defended with strategic nuclear weapons

51. 21.09.2022Ex-Putin adviser warns UK cities could be hit with nuclear weapons if Britain ‘continues to be aggressor’

52. 21.09.2022Putin escalates Ukraine war, issues nuclear threat to West

53. 18.08.2022Russia says nuclear weapons use possible only in ’emergency circumstances’

54. 12.08.2022Accidents can happen at European nuclear plants too,’ Russian ex-president says

55. 01.08.2022Putin says no one can win a nuclear war

56. 17.07.2022Russia’s Medvedev: Attack on Crimea will ignite ’Judgement Day’ response

57. 06.07.2022Russia’s Medvedev warns United States: messing with a nuclear power is folly

58. 12.05.2022Russia says Finnish entry to NATO poses threat to which it will respond

59. 10.05.2022On possible nuclear strike, Russia says: it’s all in our military doctrine

60. 06.05.2022Russian will not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, foreign ministry says

61. 30.04.2022Russia says risks of nuclear war must be kept to minimum, TASS reports

62. 25.04.2022Russia’s Lavrov: Do not underestimate threat of nuclear war

63. 24.04.2022Russia warns of nuclear, hypersonic deployment if Sweden and Finland join NATO

64. 22.03.2022Kremlin spokesman: Russia would use nuclear weapons only in case of ’threat to existence of state’

65. 28.02.2022You’ll face consequences greater than any in history: Putin warns West

66. 28.02.2022“Why Do We Need a World if Russia Is Not In It?”: State TV Presenter Opens Show With Ominous Address

67. 27.02.2022Putin nuclear alert order part of pattern of made-up threats, U.S. says

68. 27.02.2022Putin puts nuclear deterrent on alert; West squeezes Russian economy

    Russia Invades Ukraine

69. 24.02.2022EU says Putin’s ominous threat to those who hinder him marks ’critical moment’

70. 13.12.2021Russia says it may be forced to deploy mid-range nuclear missiles in Europe

71. 25.02.2019After Putin’s warning, Russian TV lists nuclear targets in U.S.

72. 21.02.2019Putin to U.S.: I’m ready for another Cuban Missile-style crisis if you want one

73. 20.02.2019Putin threatens to target US if it deploys missiles in nearby European countries

74. 20.12.2018Putin warns the threat of nuclear war should not be underestimated

75. 24.10.2018Russia will target European countries if they host U.S. nuclear missiles: Putin

76. 27.05.2015Nato chief says Russian nuclear threats are ’deeply troubling and dangerous’

77. 22.03.2015Russia threatens to aim nuclear missiles at Denmark ships if it joins NATO shield

78. 01.09.2014Russia Has Threatened Nuclear Attack, Says Ukraine Defence Minister

79. 11.07.2014Russia Threatens Nuclear Strikes Over Crimea

80. 14.05.2014Rogozin: Next time I will fly the Tu-160 (nuclear bomber)

81. 16.03.2014Russia can turn US to radioactive ash - Kremlin-backed journalist

82. 04.04.2012NATO - Russia talk of pre-emptive strike unjustified

83. 23.03.2012Medvedev calls missile defense a threat to Russia

84. 23.11.2011Russia in Europe missile threat

85. 01.12.2010Russia’s Putin warns West over missile defense: report

86. 13.10.2009Russia reserves pre-emptive nuclear strike right

87. 15.08.2008Moscow warns it could strike Poland over US missile shield

88. 13.02.2008Putin issues nuclear threat to Ukraine over plan to host US shield

89. 11.04.2007Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence

90. 10.12.1999Yeltsin gives US nuclear warning

Washington DC 18 JAN 2024

Would the bomb exist today if America did not build it in WWII?

This unanswerable imponderable has plagued UNW for years. The premise of the question is 6-fold. Given the required scientific complexity, industrial / human scale, cost, national will, national focus and unity of effort required; could nuclear weapons ever be produced outside of a crisis on the scale of a total global war by any other country other than the US?1

To accept the question as legitimate, knowledge of the various premises is required. Put another way, it was such a profound undertaking on so many levels, that it would have been impossible to accomplish under any other conditions for any country (including the US). Every one of the 6 factors had to be present to make it work.

Next to the scientific achievement, is the industrial scale of the project. It was not just some magical thing that happened in New Mexico. The map above illustrates all the sites involved. In a number of cases, entire secret cities had to be created from green field sites. The images below are from just three sites out of the total system to give readers a sense of the scale of the Manhattan Project at the local level and as a national enterprise. The first image depicts just one of three enrichment facilities at Oak Ride. Below that is housing at Hanford, in Richland WA that was the site of three reactors. Below that is Los Alamos in 1944.

Industrial scale

National Will and Unity of Effort

The only force capable of generating sufficient and prolonged national will and unity of effort in the United States was the fear that the Germans might beat the allies in creating an operational weapon. There was no question that Hitler would use a bomb at the first possible opportunity. Despite the pre-war scientific brain drain, Germany still had some key scientific minds at its disposal. It was not possible to know at the time that the bomb was out of Nazi reach. As the scale and intensity of the American experience suggests, such an undertaking was well outside the industrial capacity of resource-poor Germany struggling to keep pace with conventional weapons and munitions production.

Arguably, without the war impetus it would have been beyond American political will. Congress has always been notorious for its management of the power of the purse. It is designed for mutual fiscal accomodation. Aka… pork barreling. Had civilizational survival not been at stake, it is almost certain that Congress’s better angels would not have prevailed.

Historical Find

With this in mind, a story in the NYT’s caught UNW’s eye. Catie Edmondson, A Reporter’s Journey Into How the U.S. Funded the Bomb, New York Times, 17 Jan 2024. The link is to a “gift article” and a PDF is attached below in case the link goes bad into the future.

A Reporter’s Journey Into How The U

1.53MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Catie was interested to explore how such a huge program got funded in secret. She does a great job explaining what she found. Note, the lid is often blown off the top of national security secrets by journalists scouring thousands of pages of bland and mundane appropriations, regulations, and contracts, to find that needle in the haystack secret program. This is true today and in WWII. Catie’s story is a great read. I recommend it to you.

She also does us all a solid by discussing and highlighting the interesting sources that she finds along the way.

Of particular interests was an historical project commissioned by General Leslie Groves, known as the Manhattan District History.

This multi-volume work, once unavailable to the general public, was produced with the intent, “…to describe, in simple terms, easily understood by the average reader, just what the Manhattan District did, and how, when, and where.”

The entire collection is available HERE.

This collection provides historians and analysts with a treasure trove of information and analysis from which to draw and UNW felt obligated to share it as soon as he found it.

Conclusion

Looking this over, could America ever do a Manhattan Project ever again given how dysfunctional we have turned out as a polity and society? Can you imagine secrets like these, spending like this, and a secret program on this national scale, being kept off Twitter by radical members of Congress seeking to score a point in a ridiculous attempt to “own the other side” for a few moments in a 24hr news cycle?

At least those member of congress that currently support Russia’s war of genocide in Ukraine might follow Manhattan Project spies in justifying their treason because the Soviets were our allies in WWII.

Washington DC 7 NOV 2023

It’s time to start worrying about the bomb. The B-61 in particular.

“PINNACLE NUCFLASH”

is an an event, accident, or incident that could create the risk of a nuclear war. This report has the highest precedence in the OPREP-3 reporting structure.

Air Force Instruction (AFI) 10-206, 18 JUNE 2018

Rationale

To deter Russia, Iran and others in a volatile region contending with multiple hot war zones, the US maintains ~50 B-61 nuclear gravity bombs (~ half of the total NATO arsenal) in specially made security vaults (WS3) on the Incirlik NATO base in Turkey.

Advantages

These weapons provide NATO with significant deterrent and operational value, by vastly complicating adversary calculations. They are forward based so they can be deployed by short range attack aircraft. For example, allied F-16s are equipped, trained and ready to drop these weapons. In a crisis, the flight profile of an F-16 will not be as alarming as long range bomber deployments from the continental US. This confers a range of advantages to these weapons systems. Nor do the advantages end there.

Named after the year it was conceived, the B-61 gravity bomb provides a unique capability compared to the rest of the nuclear triad. Unlike ballistic or cruise missiles, gravity bombs do not present advanced warning of delivery with a well-known, detectable, trajectory. Free from the tyranny of trajectory, the bomb can be placed on a target with exacting precision with respect to - height, angle, azimuth, and direction - taking advantage of natural features like mountains that offer particular detonation/fallout characteristics. This is not always possible with other delivery systems.

They can be carried by a wide range of aircraft, from the B-2 to an allied F-16. They are not easily distinguishable from any other bomb on a wing mount of a fighter and are unobservable in the belly of a bomber.

The B-61 is a variable yield weapon. This means that its destructive power can be changed to fit different mission profiles. Sometimes referred to as “dial-a-yield” the B-61 can be pre-programed to detonate with a strength of between 0.3kt to 340kt (the bombs used on Japan were ~15kt). Combined with its infinitely configurable delivery profiles, the variable yield B-61 is by far the most “flexible” nuclear weapon in the US arsenal.

Disadvantage

Against this list of significant advantages must be weighed a singular disadvantage: security. There is no doubting that the threat profile against Incirlik has drastically changed from the time it was originally decided to deploy the weapon.

Located just 70 miles from the Syrian border, Incirlik is a bit too close to the acton. In 2010 the entire world was taken by surprise by the “Arab spring”. Turkey’s internal experience was not like other states in the region. But next door in Syria, the spring transformed into an on-going civil war that has deeply impacted Turkey. In 2014, ISIS terrorists reached the border 70 miles from Incirlik. Turkey is a NATO member with a strong military. They pushed back hard against the threat.

However, that very strength itself became a potential threat when there was an attempted military coup in Turkey just two years later. Had events gone a different way, and had the Turkish military (or a splinter faction) been turned against Incirlik to seize the bombs for political leverage (for example), there is precious little the US forces at the base could do about it. Avoiding a deep dive branch and sequels analysis, suffice it to say US response options might have lead to a major war with a NATO ally. Whether Turkey would even be an ally after a coup - and many other complications - excluded. The point being, any such scenario gets very complicated, very fast. Having nuclear weapons sitting in the middle of that caldron is incredibly ill-advised.

This week there was a new reminder of how things could change at the drop of a hat. In the wake of the devastating surprise terrorist attack inside Israel, and related psychological operations, “the Arab street” rose up in outrage all around the world. Even in sleepy Australia, far away from the world’s troubles, protestors gathered at the iconic Sydney Opera house chanting "gas the Jews". To anyone that knows Australia, this is truly astonishing.

Protests spread like wild fire and shifted in unexpected ways. At first it looked like protestors were conflating support for the Palestinians people stuck in Gaza with their oppressors.1 Then it became clear that large swaths of people (Arab and non-Arab alike), were in fact pro-Hamas. Pro-terror. As indicated by the chants at the cathedral of high culture down under.

Protests came within yards from Incirlik’s nuclear weapons. In this instance, the protests were relatively minor and turned away without much indecent. What about next time? Or the time after that?

In an era of strategic surprise (Arab spring, ISIS 70 miles from the warheads, the Turkish coup, Hamas surprise attack, protests yards from the weapons), in a region of high volatility; the advantages of the B-61s in Turkey are completely outweighed by multiple threat vectors - known and unknown.

Foreseeable Implications

Protection of nuclear weapons is a no fail mission. Leaving them in Turkey only encourages a no win situation. Whether through a coup or terrorism, the psychological, propaganda and political value of anti-NATO forces merely gaining access to the NATO base at Incirlik would be profound. It would demonstrate acute weakness at exactly the spot where overwhelming strength must never be in question.

Human hostages have completely changed the game in the Hamas-Israel war. Even if the WS3 vaults and Permissive Action Links (PALs) worked perfectly, possession of the terrain alone would be treated no differently than possession of a workable bomb. Taking just one 350 kiloton nuclear bomb hostage - let alone 50 of them - would result in world history changing events.2

Regardless of the posture of the Turkish military in any scenario, the US military would successfully recover the weapons, no matter the cost. The point is why take such risks?

The B-61s must be relocated to other NATO facilities ASAP

This can be done quietly and intelligently under the guise of budgetary, operational, training, or myriad other ‘necessities’. Plausible excuses can be found and made that satisfy domestic and international scrutiny. Or pay the Turks off with an acceptable trade. As for the need to have the weapons forward due to the combat radius of fighter aircraft, that argument is negated by air-to-air refueling and 11 other WS3 NATO equipped bases.3

Turkey is a critically important ally of the US and Europe. It holds the key to new accessions to NATO. Finland was allowed in after concessions were made to Turkey, but it has been holding back on Sweden. Turkey has bottled up the Black Sea, forbidding the transit of Russian warships to the Med. It has sold much needed drone technology to Ukraine that has made a material difference to operations prior to the emerging stalemate recently acknowledged by the Ukrainian Chief of Staff.

In some respects, Turkey has been a bulwark against extremism. In others, a bystander or worse. Founded by Kamal Ataturk, embracing modernism, secularism and capitalism, these values have been contested in the past few decades. Like all the states of the region, it has to manage its extremists within, and that tightrope occasionally shudders. A member of NATO, its internal politics prevented its accession to the EU. That was a painful insult that some point to as encouraging extremism. That is ironic because EU standards were created and imposed in order to encourage the opposite reaction - namely reform of politics and economics to become aligned with democratic principles.

Withdrawal of the B-61s will be considered a major insult to Turkish pride. It will undermine confidence in the regime and might precipitate further instability in the country and region. But no one can exclude those outcomes regardless of the location of the bombs. All of the arguments against moving the weapons are important. They are not more important than preventing a clearly foreseeable global security crisis of unprecendented consequence.

A little hurt pride might swing Turkey further into Russia’s camp. This would be a very negative development. However, the Turks are not stupid. They know they are walking a fine line and that Russia is not their friend. One might respond that equally, they understand the importance of the weapons for their country and will always act accordingly. The problem is they do not have full control of events in and around their country in the same manner as other NATO nuclear partners.

Moreover, if done in a careful clandestine way, dribbling them out in ones and twos and replacing them with inert doubles under the guise of training exercises etc (for just one possible example), it may be some time before any realization is made that a change has taken place. Just think of the terrorist or coup forces holding the base, prying open the WS3 vaults, only to discover they are the proud new owners of a stainless steel shaft filled with sand!

Conclusion and warning

A no fail mission in a no win situation demands immediate resolution. If the worst case situation happens, never say this was an intelligence or imagination failure. This is the warning. Act on it.

Share

Leave a comment

This is a down and dirty assessment of the coup that wasn’t and implications for C2 and security of Russian nuclear weapons - particularly the vast tactical arsenal that is not subject to arms control agreements and thus robust surveillance.

Attempted Coup

Russia. What a day! No one had a clue what was happening. I went to all the top shelf sources and nothing... That degree of surprise concerned me. Below story 1 was my first reaction to events and story 2 is the update once Prigozhin turned around.

Story 1

Story 2

I was skeptical that no shots were fired in Rostov, but that was consistent with the army siding with Wagner (at least locally). That was a big deal and logical given how badly the army has been led and how poorly it has performed in combat.

It was clear Wagner could not take Moscow unless they had done deals across the board with commanders there. The fact they headed for Moscow suggested these deals were made. Obviously it was certain death to attempt this without such deals in place. Surely, Wagner had an Operation Valkyrie?1

False Flag? Nyet

Once it ended so fast, another possibility was an elaborate false flag event to give Putin a pretext for a massive crackdown and termination of a losing war. He came to power on the back of a manufactured terrorist incident where RU spies blew up RU apartment blocks to make it look like terrorists. Yesterday Putin looked weak that it happened at all, but ending it within 24 hrs made him look in command ready to put down all threats. So if it was a fake flag, it was desperate but crudely effective. Another motive for a false flag might have been a reminder to the West that the devil you know is better than general chaos. In those terms it worked!

However, new evidence suggests it was not a false flag at all. 

This morning US intelligence revealed they knew this was coming. That critical info tells me that this was a real event and that Prigozhin is an idiot. He did not have plans in place. He did not lock down deals in Moscow before heading north. He was just a frustrated moron who was driven by emotions lashing out like a toddler. 

Catastrophic success

It now appears clear that he got a lot further than he expected. Like everyone else, he was stunned by his catastrophic success. Suddenly he was looking at a clear run to Moscow. Evidently, he never expected to have that opportunity. He was therefore faced with a new unexpected decision: should he turn his petulant unplanned protest into a full blown coup? As that was not his aim (as I write about in story 1), he bottled it. 

In doing so he is now a dead man walking. Putin's record of going after traitors is well known. He is patient and persistent. Prigozhin will die by Putins hand. The only question is when.

Take aways

Russia is much weaker and vulnerable to a coup than it already appeared. This may give smarter, better prepared plotters ideas. Accordingly, this may come to be seen as a turning point for a later successful plot. Yesterday turned into a dry run - like J6. Bad actors now have a framework and a test of the system upon which to plot and plan a serious attempt.

Once a hairline fracture appears, it takes much less effort to wedge it further open or break the bone altogether. Weakness is the last thing you want to signal when you are surrounded by wild wolves. Putin will know this and try to shore up his position, but he is now exposed.

C2 of Nukes

Security of strategic nuclear weapons is a concern but not as much as the thousands of "little" nuclear weapons the Russians have. That is a very big deal because arms control agreements do not cover them so we have much less info on them. Their command and control and ability to detonate them is vastly less robust than for strategic weapons. As a friend said to me we are looking at a nuclear armed mercenary group run by criminals and mafia thugs. They dont tend to play by Queensbury rules. If Wagner detonated a small nuke in Ukraine would an American president wipe out Moscow in response? A classic unconventional nuclear warfare conundrum.

Control of tactical nukes is a nightmare. It will impact our choices. Whoever can control them will be our least worse choice. The challenge is events will almost certainly not give us a choice. A follow-on fast moving event could see someone else emerge who is not our choice or on whom we cannot depend upon for sanity or capacity to control the tactical weapons. Then the fate of millions will be at the mercy of a thug. 

Having said that - this is the situation today. Putin is a genocidal war criminal. The only difference between him and whoever comes next is he has been steeped in the reality of nuclear C2. The next thug likely has not and may therefore play fast and loose - which in a worst case scenario may not keep events ‘left of boom’.

Update

My most trusted Russian analyst, Julia Ioffe, said this morning on the news that listening to Putin’s voice and also his word choice, she could tell this was a real situation. That is very useful and she has never been wrong in my observation.

Looking at her Twitter she offered this as the best commentary. Im rather pleased to note it does not differ much from mine - but has more detail. Pleased, because I am not a Russia expert. Julia Ioffe and Tatiana Stanovaya are some of the very best.

Update:

From a special friend:

I used DEAD MAN WALKING early yesterday when a flag officer asked me about PRIG. We could hold a drawing on when and how he “passes on". I say within 60 days: 

• 1. Chechen hired assassin 

• 2. FSB Station in Belarus covered SPETSNAZ terminator

• 3. Wagner well paid insider..with an assured way out.

• 4. Missile strike

• 5. Auto accident

• 6. Ukranian expat hit man

Share