Might arise. Have its ot yet advanced warning capabilities. But if it were to develop them, and if it were to prevent attacks on china, it seems that would be a scenario in which warhead ambiguity would be a particular problem. And a lot of the analysis of warhead ambiguity today its hard to convince russia that a strike on a third country, like. Ran, was not a Nuclear Strike that is the easy case. A hard case is how you deal with notkes when the strike is on a third country, but the country with the advanced Early Warning capability, like russia. R china that being said, there are benefits and risks to prevention all Global Strikes conventional Global Strikes. When l. A. N. Was an analyst at mdu she is now the Deputy Assistant secretary of defense. Unlike a ballistic missile, where it is launching rare is going to land, highly maneuverable boost glide systems, and to an extent, hypersonic cruise missiles, have ambiguity about where theyre going to land. Countries observing them cannot
Is when general cartwright was commander of Strategic Command and vice chairman of the joint chiefs, he was clearly very much in favor of substituting nuclear for conventional weapons. Using Nuclear Weapons to substitute for conventional weapons. Inhe was very interested deeper reductions by conventional substitution. Saw the boys on that question. Isolated voice on that question. I think what the obama today is two things. Worries that the use of Nuclear Weapons would not be credible. Which is not a scenario that is involving russia. It is iran, north korea, and by developing nuclear alternatives. The president is presented with a Nuclear Option andmy interpretation is that Nuclear Weapons cannot complete the substitute for conventional weapons. Thosear or conventional would be scenarios in which the use of Nuclear Weapons might lack credibility. Secondly, if the u. S. Couldnt retains dominant, that it does not have to have Nuclear Weapons as a hedge against inferior r. T. Inferiority