Historically, adversaries, ranging from Imperial Japan to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, badly miscalculated American resolve. This was, in part, because the US did not effectively communicate national will and the country’s ability to generate combat power.

While nuclear deterrence held during the Cold War, a worrisome erosion of America’s nuclear deterrence appears underway. A combination of unilateral cuts to the American arsenal, sluggish nuclear modernization, and “nuclear psychosis” (fear of one’s own nuclear arsenal) likely led Russian President Vladimir Putin to develop an escalate to win nuclear doctrine. The same factors may also contribute to China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia issuing mounting conventional and nuclear threats against the West.

Americans need to remember that escalation dominance is an essential ingredient in effectively maintaining deterrence of adversaries and assurance of allies. Escalation dominance means having the option to retaliate up or down the escalation ladder—at America’s choosing. This means developing and fielding capabilities that at least achieve parity, if not superiority, at each rung of the escalation ladder.

Without the US investing in the needed capabilities for full-spectrum conflict, all-domain escalation dominance, adversaries can study America’s capabilities and identify gaps. They can then develop and execute successful strategies that exploit those gaps. They can also incorrectly believe gaps exist, because of a failure of American messaging. Either way, American deterrence might fail.

The US once understood the art and science of escalation dominance—including how to weigh and manage uncertainties and unavoidable risks. At the most dangerous point in the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US out-thought, outmaneuvered, and overmatched the Soviet Union. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev backed down. President Ronald Reagan successfully escalated an arms race while also waging economic warfare. The Soviet Union collapsed.

America now faces multiple adversaries it must engage across the spectrum of conflict. Both horizontal and vertical escalation are certain. With the potential for conflicts to start in the cyber or space domain, the United States must have the ability to limit damaging incursions and malicious interference, while out-escalating an adversary.

History shows that America’s enemies, whomever they might be, tend to be relentless, brutal, casualty acceptant, and even genocidal. Current events, in conflict zones around the world, prove that this has not changed. Appeasement is as ill-advised today as it was with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Restraint is also as ill-advised now as it was then.

Sound theories of American victory need to be developed. Sound American strategy requires the proper matching of objectives to means. Without these in place, deterrence might not hold.

The stakes could not be higher. Conventional war is still almost always a prolonged and very bloody business, in which civilians are caught in the middle and have no safe refuge. If America’s strategic deterrence ever fails, the homeland might suffer devastating attack. Destruction in Ukraine is a small example of what such destruction could look like.

Nuclear war would likely prove unimaginably worse. Nuclear deterrence demands the ability to respond with proportional retaliatory strikes. It also requires the ability to match enemy escalation. The US cannot allow itself to be self-deterred by either a lack of will or a lack of capability. Self-deterrence is to give license to adversaries.

Yet some in the US continue to advocate for policies that eschew escalation at any cost.  This is a theory of defeat, not victory. Attempts to avoid risks only increase the cost of risk.

Such advocates need to be reminded that bullies will always test those they despise. Saving face and taking safe off-ramps are not a priority. For the US to be unable or unwilling to respond with sufficient force when necessary will only invite further and far worse aggression.

In the Cold War now underway, there is a danger of rapid escalation. To cede the military initiative to adversaries, to abandon America’s time-honored strategic culture of retaining full-spectrum escalation dominance, is to invite a nuclear strike against the nation and/or its allies. Adversary malign-influence campaigning is underway and now pervades American information.  Succumbing to these efforts to convince American society that isolation and pacifism are the nation’s best option is a mistake.

Appeasement never satisfies autocratic aggression. The United States must instead invest in the capabilities required to re-master the art and science of strong-stomached escalation dominance. This will support deterrence of America’s adversaries, assurance of America’s allies, and defense of the homeland. Now is the time to act.

Joe Buff is a Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Views expressed in this article are the author’s own. 

Modern Escalation Dominance Is Essential to Effective Deterrence and Assurance was originally published on Global Security Review.

In 2024, the world’s population surpassed 8 billion citizens. This is more than a 300 percent increase since 1950, which is an important year for global warming. It was this year when carbon-dioxide (CO₂) emissions began to increase dramatically—driving up the global temperature.

Today, the average American emits about 15 tons of greenhouse gases annually, while the average African emits less than 1 ton per year. The global mean is about 4.3 tons per person per year, a 4.8 percent increase over the previous year.

As the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists points out, the planet is now feeling the devastating effects of the 1.1-degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature since 1880. According to the Bulletin, recent global warming is responsible for the increased risk of wildfires, the rise of rare diseases, the decline in global crop yields, and may even cause a “mosquito-pocalypse.”

Nuclear weapons deserve a large share of blame for these events. Let me explain.

Nuclear Weapons and Climate Change

As the graph below illustrates, 1–2 percent of the global population, mostly civilians, perished annually because of war between 1600 and 1945. Since 1950, with the development and fielding of great-power nuclear arsenals, that number has declined to less than 0.1 percent.

It is no mere coincidence that the global population has increased 300 percent in only seven decades. The fielding of large nuclear arsenals by the United States and Russia ensured that the great powers and their allies would not engage in World War III, or any other great-power war, that historically ensured the planet did not become overpopulated. Built on a foundation of White privilege, nuclear deterrence created a fear of utter destruction, which completely eliminated great-power war and led to a marked decline in the frequency and severity of all conflict—causing the human population to explode. Thus, the check on population growth was removed.

These weapons not only limit war, but they also decrease defense expenditures and the resources required for reconstruction after war. For example, the United States spent almost half of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) waging a world war from 1942–1945. More recently, the United States spent at least $3 trillion fighting limited wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, because of the Soviet and American nuclear arsenals, American defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, averaged a mere 5 percent during the Cold War and is now at a low of 3.5 percent.

The consequence of this reallocation of wealth from conventional warfare was unprecedented economic growth, which not only allowed populations to increase but also allowed societies to improve the health, prosperity, and consumption of their citizens—dramatically reducing poverty and increasing the average life expectancy (62 percent). This prosperity also led to the most rapid increase in technological development in human history.

The population growth and human prosperity brought about by seven decades of effective nuclear deterrence may appear to be a net positive, but a closer look reveals that human prosperity comes at the cost of devastating increases in the rate of global warming. There are simply more humans generating more greenhouse gases than ever, and the problem is only getting worse. There is a solution.

Solving the Climate Change Problem

It is time for the United States to take the lead in nuclear disarmament. If the United States, Great Britain, and France disarm, Russia, China, and North Korea will surely follow suit. The global community can then pressure India and Pakistan to disarm as well.

This does not mean we must put an end to war. Nuclear disarmament properly allows the world to return to waging large-scale conventional wars, which regulate population growth and economic prosperity. Such wars will help bring man-made global warming to an end. For example, a war between the United States, Russia, and China—post nuclear disarmament—would optimistically eliminate 80–160 million people. The planet would receive a respite in CO₂ production not enjoyed since the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns of 2020–2021.

The return to large-scale warfare will also ensure worldwide economic degrowth, which will further reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. It is only through a less prosperous world that we can ensure global warming ends. Another equitable feature of this strategy is that population will be reduced among the richest, most consumptive nations, possibly leaving room for some modest increases in the developing world.

Some may balk at this solution because they believe a return to great-power wars is not necessary because green energy will solve the problem. Unfortunately,  green energy’s high cost, unreliable energy production, and visible failures in Texas, Germany, and elsewhere are likely to turn people against a degrowth strategy relying on a green energy transition. Despite our best efforts, renewable energy simply cannot meet the insatiable demand of a wealthier and healthier global population. A return to widespread warfare is the only feasible solution.

It is time we follow the advice of Jonathan Swift, who, in his pamphlet, “A Modest Proposal: For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick,” courageously sought to solve the Irish poverty problem by encouraging the Irish to sell their children as food for the hungry. Making the world safe for war is an equally innovative approach to ending global warming and deserves the same consideration Swift’s proposal received. We must act before it is too late.

Postscript

For those wondering if this is a serious article, the answer should be obvious, no. The article employs a rhetorical technique, reductio ad absurdum or, as Jonathan Swift called it, satire, to make a point. In short, a world without nuclear weapons is prone to frequent great-power wars that create greater human misery. No amount of hope can change what history and human nature have, for at least five thousand years, shown to be true.

Adam Lowther, PhD, is Vice President of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own. 

The Climate Change Consequences of Nuclear Weapons was originally published on Global Security Review.

Two issues are at play today. First, a direct military confrontation between the United States and China appears inevitable, despite the economic entanglement that was intended to prevent it. Second, two nations that are so closely tied economically have rarely waged war, leaving such conflict’s second and third order effects unknown. Should the United States follow Reagan’s approach and challenge China’s economic rise, there may be a path to avoiding conflict. Oil may be a good place to begin such an effort because China is so highly dependent on oil imports.

President Reagan began by initiating a change in US oil price policy that commenced what National Security Council official Roger Robinson called a policy of “economic warfare” against the Soviet Union. One of Reagan’s first moves was to decontrol the price of oil. This lowered the price of oil and markedly decreased the earnings of the Soviet government, which relied heavily on oil and gas sales to generate foreign currency reserves.

A second move was to encourage the expansion of American oil and gas production over the long-term—driving down prices. In 1984, President Reagan persuaded the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to markedly increase oil production by seven million barrels a day, again seriously reducing Moscow’s export earnings. As an importer of oil, driving prices down would help, not hurt, the Chinese economy. Thus, the United States would need to put Chinese oil imports at risk and more expensive.

China is growing its ability to project military power astride key maritime choke points which see the transit of 60 percent of global oil production—58.9 million barrels of oil per day. This includes four choke points where China is seeking a military presence. These include: the Straits of Hormuz (with the help of Iran); the Straits of Malacca (through military construction in the South China Sea); Bab el-Mandeb (with Iranian/Houthi help); and the Suez Canal.

While China fears an oil cut-off during a military conflict, it appears China is seeking to turn the tables on the United States. As part of China’s belt and roads initiative, overland routes for petroleum export are under construction, with a specific design to prevent American interference.

Given the stakes, the United States must act with urgency and circumspection as it looks for ways to economically disentangle from China—a country which clearly seeks to supplant American global influence. As the Chairman of the Committee on the Present Danger warned in a recent “Xi’s Pearl Harbor”  broadcast, many American institutions may not be up to the challenge. Employing oil as a deterrent force is no simple task.

If China were to achieve a stranglehold on oil tanker transportation, America’s NATO allies stand to suffer most. Michael Klein and Robert Zubrin point out that it is no coincidence that each recession since 1975 began with sharp spikes in oil prices.

Currently, the United States is the largest oil producer in the world despite the Biden administration’s efforts to constrain oil production. Should administration’s change or President Biden change his position on hydrocarbons, the United States could, in a time of crisis, ramp up production to counter Chinese efforts to constrain oil flows.

There is real value in the United States securing the sea-lanes and thwarting Chinese plans to build overseas bases at key the key geographic points mentioned above. One of China’s weaknesses is that it uses economics in a purely coercive way that seem attractive at first, but always carry heavy burden on the back end. States participating in the Belt and Road Initiative are now coming to regret their decision. Buyer’s regret is a key tool the United States can use to thwart Chinese expansionist efforts.

Maintaining a sufficiently sized and capable US Navy that can patrol sea lanes remains a core capability and coercive tool of American diplomacy. The sight of American warships in foreign ports, rather than Chinese warships, speaks volumes to those countries considering which superpower to support. This is proving particularly true in the Middle East as oil rich nations are reconsidering their cooperation with the United States.

In a future strategic environment where China attempts to use oil as a coercive tool, the United States must be prepared to push back or prevent such a set of circumstances from ever materializing. The time is now for American policymakers to contemplate the role oil can play in economic warfare with China. Xi Jinping is certainly thinking about it.

Peter Huessy is a senior fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies.  Views expressed in this article are the author’s own. 

Economic Deterrence: Chinese Style was originally published on Global Security Review.