“The constant readiness of the US Army and Air Force to signal the Kremlin dates back to 1981 when I served as a lieutenant in Germany during the Cold War,” asserts Ben Hodges, a distinguished figure with an impressive military background. As the former commander of U.S. Army Europe from 2014 to 2018 and a leader in various international deployments, Hodges now holds the Chair of Strategic Studies at the Center for Policy Analysis.
In an exclusive interview conducted for an upcoming feature, “The Nuclear Abyss,” Hodges shares insights into the potential for nuclear war, its consequences, and the support of American troops in Europe. Here’s a glimpse into our separate discussion with Hodges:
– What is the likelihood and rationale behind the initiation of a nuclear war?
“Taking the prospect of nuclear war seriously is imperative,” emphasizes Hodges. Recognizing Russia’s substantial nuclear arsenal, he points out their apparent indifference to civilian casualties. However, Hodges deems the actual likelihood of a nuclear war as highly improbable. Despite Russia’s possession of nuclear weapons, he argues that they would derive no tangible benefits from their use. The only advantage, Hodges notes, lies in the potential to leverage the threat for strategic gains, such as impeding support for Ukraine.
“While threats of nuclear weapons provide Russia with a perceived advantage, the actual use is doubtful,” Hodges asserts. Drawing parallels with past instances where other nations employed long-range precision weapons without eliciting a nuclear response from Russia, he maintains that the probability of a nuclear war remains low.
Hodges suggests that not only has China cautioned Russia against deploying nuclear weapons, but US President Joe Biden’s stern warning about catastrophic consequences has likely been heeded. Furthermore, the consideration of life after Putin by those close to him implies accountability for their actions, discouraging any reckless nuclear endeavors.
– Who might be inclined to launch a nuclear missile first?
Hodges categorically rules out the USA, Great Britain, or France as potential initiators of a nuclear strike, emphasizing their lack of need or intention to resort to such measures. On the contrary, he deems Russia’s constant threats as dangerous and irresponsible, particularly given its status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
“The danger lies in our response. If we appear susceptible to simple threats, other nations like North Korea, Iran, and China may interpret it as a green light for Russia to deploy nuclear weapons,” Hodges warns, underscoring the importance of a measured response.
– What are the types and potency of the weapons in question?
Hodges delineates the diversity in nuclear weapons, distinguishing between strategic nuclear weapons, such as those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Russian tactical nuclear weapons designed for specific objectives. He notes that assuming any strike would resemble Hiroshima is a misconception, as Russian tactical weapons serve different purposes, focusing on destroying or creating gaps in defenses.
– Which regions are susceptible to nuclear missile impact?
Hodges emphasizes the unlikelihood of Russia deploying nuclear weapons due to the absence of discernible targets. Contrary to strategic considerations where destroying a significant location might confer an advantage, he argues that the extensive damage already inflicted on Ukrainian cities from conventional missiles diminishes the strategic utility of nuclear weapons. Therefore, identifying specific regions at risk becomes a challenging task.
In summary, Ben Hodges provides a nuanced perspective on the complex dynamics surrounding the potential for nuclear war, shedding light on the motivations, risks, and practical considerations that shape the discourse on this critical issue.