Russia updated its nuclear doctrine a few weeks ago, then the United States elections came and we learned that the new administration has in Project 25 some guidelines to rearm in a big way, and not only with its sights on Moscow, but, and very Importantly, in that elephant on the table that has possibly stopped being called China. With several war conflicts far from over and tensions in territories and islands around the planet, it is a good time to recover a story from the Cold War: Proud Prophet.
The delicate “nuclear” balance. A few weeks ago the New York Times reported that since the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, nuclear confrontation has become a complex form of communication, where each test, treaty or threat sends a strategic message. However, there is no doubt that this “nuclear language” operates in a context of mistrust and ambiguity.
If we followed common sense we would say that it is key to global survival that the powers in question maintain clear and sustainable communication, recognizing the ease with which misinterpretation can arise. Precisely during the Cold War, communication systems and deterrence capabilities were designed to avoid surprises and guarantee retaliation, but with the end of the conflict, attention was diverted to emerging threats such as terrorism and cybersecurity, relegating de-escalation skills. nuclear to the background.
The arms race. We told it a few weeks ago. In recent years, the global nuclear situation has changed quite a bit. Powers such as China, Russia and the United States have stepped up (or are in the process of) modernizing their arsenals, introducing new warheads, advanced delivery vehicles and tactical nuclear weapons designed to minimize collateral damage.
These smaller weapons, although supposedly deterrent, are more tempting to use in conventional conflicts, increasing the risk of uncontrolled escalations, emphasis again on so-called “tactics.” Furthermore, the expiration of key arms control treaties and distrust between powers have created a dangerous strategic environment, where communication has deteriorated and the possibilities of limited nuclear conflict have re-emerged.
Escalate to de-escalate. The concept of using nuclear weapons in a “limited” manner to control a military escalation is one of the most dangerous theories discussed in military circles. Under this framework, it is proposed that a tactical nuclear attack could stop an enemy, forcing it to reconsider its position and give in to diplomatic negotiations.
However, history and strategic logic demonstrate that this belief is a dangerous fantasy that ignores the inevitable catastrophic consequences of any nuclear exchange. Mainly, the strategy underestimates. or is not capable of dimensioning the emotional and strategic response of an adversary who could see the attack as an existential threat, initiating a massive nuclear exchange. For everything else: the game that was started many years ago.
According to the Prophet It happened in 1983, when the Pentagon organized a kind of war game under the title Proud Prophet with which to evaluate the nuclear strategies of the United States in a hypothetical conflict with the Soviet Union. This exercise was unique because it used real plans, classified communication channels and also allowed events to unfold without pre-established restrictions, and included senior defense officials, top secret plans and real-time simulations.
During the drill, an initial escalation led to the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons to “de-escalate,” unleashing a chain of Soviet retaliation that culminated in global destruction: the Soviets interpreted the attack as a threat to their existence and responded with a massive nuclear bombing. This caused an uncontrollable escalation that, according to the simulation, killed more than a billion people and left large areas of the northern hemisphere uninhabitable.
The exercise demonstrated that, once a nuclear conflict begins, even with low intensity/tactical or limited weapons, control is impossible. The main lesson was clear: there is no way to manage a nuclear war, and any attempt to do so inevitably leads to catastrophe.
The dangerous persistence. The game/simulator, there is no doubt, was a lesson. However, the idea of limited nuclear war has resurfaced in contemporary military thinking. The United States has invested in the development of new tactical nuclear weapons, such as the long-range nuclear cruise missile (LRSO), designed to provide strategic flexibility in conflicts. Although presented as deterrence tools, these weapons lower the threshold for their use, fostering the false perception that a nuclear exchange can be controlled.
Figures such as former Secretary of Defense Robert Work have pointed out that “any nuclear use is the ultimate escalation,” and that thinking about controlling a nuclear escalation is “playing with fire.” Even Reagan, after the Proud Prophet results, concluded that “a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” Other “illustrious” experts such as Paul Bracken and Bruce Blair have warned about the risks of these policies, pointing out that the pursuit of nuclear dominance, far from being a deterrent, further destabilizes global security. Investments in tactical nuclear weapons suggest that this warning is not widely heeded, promoting a dangerous view that the weapons are “usable.”
The misinterpretation. As reported in the Times, the core of the problem possibly lies in a lack of trust and the ease with which strategic messages can be misinterpreted. During Proud Prophet, both sides of the drill experienced moments where they simultaneously believed they were winning or losing, evidencing how opacity on the battlefield can lead to catastrophic decisions. Today, mistrust between powers, combined with fragile communication systems, amplifies the risk that a miscalculation could trigger a nuclear conflict. The Cold War simulator warned this many decades ago.
Imagen | Goodfon
In WorldOfSoftware | An unprecedented nuclear arms race has begun: one in which the US, Russia… and also China participate
In WorldOfSoftware | In 1940 the US offered Denmark $100 million for Greenland. NASA has found the reason: a secret city
