Russia recently updated its nuclear doctrine. Meanwhile, in the U.S., President-elect Donald Trump’s administration is preparing to implement Project 2025, a comprehensive plan for rearmament. This strategy isn’t focused solely on Moscow but also on China—a growing elephant in the geopolitical room. Amid ongoing wars and simmering tensions across the globe, it’s worth revisiting a Cold War-era story: the lessons of Proud Prophet.
The delicate “nuclear” balance. Since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, nuclear confrontation has evolved into a precarious form of communication. Every test, treaty, or threat sends a strategic message, as The New York Times recently reported. However, this “nuclear language” operates in an atmosphere of mistrust and ambiguity.
Common sense dictates that global survival depends on clear, sustained communication among nuclear powers, given the potential for catastrophic misinterpretation. During the Cold War, systems of communication and deterrence were designed to prevent surprises and ensure retaliation. However, after the conflict ended, attention shifted to new threats like terrorism and cybersecurity, leaving nuclear de-escalation capabilities on the back burner.
The arms race. In recent years, the nuclear landscape has shifted dramatically. The U.S, China, and Russia have modernized their arsenals, introducing new warheads, advanced delivery systems, and tactical nuclear weapons designed to minimize collateral damage.
While smaller, tactical nukes are marketed as deterrents, they increase the temptation to use them in conventional conflicts, raising the risk of uncontrolled escalation. The expiration of key arms control treaties and growing mistrust among powers have created a dangerous strategic environment, reviving the possibility of limited nuclear conflict.
Escalation to de-escalation? The concept of using “limited” nuclear weapons to control military escalation is one of the most perilous theories in military strategy. It suggests that a tactical nuclear strike could halt an adversary, force a reassessment, and open the door to diplomacy.
History and logic, however, show this is a dangerous delusion. Any nuclear exchange, no matter how limited, risks catastrophic consequences. An adversary perceiving such an attack as an existential threat could easily escalate to full-scale nuclear retaliation.
Proud Prophet. In 1983, the Pentagon conducted a war game called Proud Prophet to test U.S. nuclear strategies in a hypothetical conflict with the Soviet Union. This unique exercise used real plans and classified communication channels, allowing events to unfold without predetermined constraints.
The game began with the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons for “de-escalation.” Instead, it triggered a chain reaction of Soviet retaliation, culminating in global destruction. The Soviets interpreted the U.S. strike as an existential threat, responding with a massive nuclear bombing. The simulated escalation killed over a billion people and rendered large parts of the northern hemisphere uninhabitable.
The lesson was stark: Once a nuclear conflict begins, controlling it is impossible. The exercise demonstrated that any nuclear war would inevitably spiral into catastrophe.
Dangerous persistence. Despite the lessons of Proud Prophet, the concept of limited nuclear war has resurfaced in modern military thinking. The U.S. has invested in new tactical nuclear weapons, like the long-range nuclear cruise missile, which offer strategic flexibility in conflicts.
While billed as deterrents, these weapons lower the threshold for nuclear use and perpetuate the illusion that nuclear exchanges can be controlled. Former Defense Secretary Robert Work warned, “Any nuclear use is the ultimate escalation,” and former President Ronald Reagan famously concluded, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
Other experts such as Paul Bracken and Bruce Blair have warned of the risks of such a policy, noting that the pursuit of nuclear dominance, far from being a deterrent, further destabilizes global security. Nevertheless, modern investments in tactical nukes suggest these warnings are being ignored, promoting the dangerous view that such weapons are “usable.”
The danger of miscalculation. As the Times stated, the core issue lies in mistrust and the ease with which strategic messages can be misinterpreted. During Proud Prophet, both sides experienced moments where they simultaneously believed they were winning or losing. This opacity on the battlefield illustrated how quickly misjudgments could lead to disaster.
Today, with communication systems fragile and mistrust between nuclear powers growing, the risk of miscalculation remains high. Proud Prophet offered a dire warning decades ago—a warning that feels disturbingly relevant in today’s world.
Image | Xataka with Grok
View 0 comments