--“As Somebody who is cognizant of the evidence at all classification levels, cognizant of what’s going on in our exercises…I believe the light is blinking red.” Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote

--“Now the international situation has changed dramatically…In order to protect the peaceful rise of our country, it is necessary to make limited adjustments to our nuclear policy.” Unofficial People’s Liberation Army Website

As the 59^th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis approaches on October 16^th, it may be useful to reflect and consider some strategic similarities, and dissimilarities, between the U.S.-USSR nuclear confrontation over Cuba in 1962, and the present China-U.S. confrontation over Taiwan, that many fear could escalate into a nuclear World War III.

Cuba and Taiwan: Superpower Confrontation

Ideologically, the takeover of Cuba by communist revolutionary Fidel Castro in 1959 was perceived in Washington to be a serious blow to the credibility of the U.S. and the Free World in their Cold War struggle against Soviet communism.  Cuba, a free enterprise “wild west” for U.S. corporations, and in America’s own backyard, had thrown off “the shackles of capitalism” to go communist.

Today, Taiwan is literally and figuratively an island of political and economic freedom, a prosperous rebuke to communist totalitarianism, in China’s own backyard. 

Far worse from Beijing’s perspective, the government of Taiwan is descended from anti-communists who lost the civil war to control mainland China in 1949.   Taiwan’s government calls itself the “Republic of China” because they still consider themselves the legitimate rulers of the mainland, in exile.

The “People’s Republic of China,” as communist China calls itself, regards Taiwan’s “Republic of China” as illegitimate, an unconquered pocket of rebellion, in illegal occupation of communist China’s island territory of Taiwan.

Worst of all from Beijing’s perspective—Taiwan’s government poses an existential threat to communist China.  Taiwan could foment revolution, or someday return from exile with the backing of the U.S. and allies to takeover control of the mainland, or so a paranoid Beijing fears.

Consequently, China’s ideological and political interests in conquering Taiwan are far greater than U.S. interests were or are in ousting communism from Cuba. 

Yet the U.S. did covertly invade Cuba, in the unsuccessful Bay of Pigs operation, run by the CIA using an army of Cuban exiles, unsupported by the U.S. military, so Washington could avoid looking like an “imperialist” power.

Communist China has no qualms about breaking international law or making overt military threats to conquer Taiwan.  China has been constrained from doing so for decades only because of their insufficient military capabilities and fear of U.S. intervention.

Cuba and Taiwan: Nuclear Flashpoints

Geostrategically, Cuba and Taiwan are in analogous situations, island nations next door to military superpowers, indefensible without a superpower friend.

In 1962, Cuba’s superpower friend was the USSR.  But even the USSR could not project enough naval strength across the Atlantic to defend Cuba from the United States. 

So Moscow protected Cuba with extended nuclear deterrence, including by basing nuclear missiles in Cuba—which also greatly increased the USSR’s capability to launch a surprise nuclear attack against the U.S.

So began the Cuban missile crisis (16 October – 20 November 1962), resolved by the USSR’s humiliating withdrawal of nuclear missiles from Cuba—compelled by the U.S. having a 5-to-1 advantage in ICBMs and vast superiority in strategic nuclear bombers. 

President Kennedy also secretly agreed to withdraw U.S. obsolete Jupiter missiles from Turkey.  That the Soviets accepted international humiliation and kept this part of the deal secret testifies to the bargaining leverage afforded by superior U.S. nuclear firepower in 1962.

Consequences of U.S. Military and Nuclear Decline

Today, if China attempts to conquer Taiwan, it will be the U.S., like the USSR in 1962, that will be militarily disadvantaged.               

The Pentagon’s own wargames show the U.S. losing to China in a conflict over Taiwan.

The Defense Department’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Integration, and Requirements, Lt. General Sam Hinote, warned recently: “As Somebody who is cognizant of the evidence at all classification levels, cognizant of what’s going on in our exercises…I believe the light is blinking red…Why?  Because it used to be that when we did future war games, we were having trouble when we set the war game 5, 10, 15 years out into the future…But what has changed since the last time we sat in this building two years ago, is that it’s not a future problem…It is a current problem…We are out of time.”

Like the U.S. in 1962, China may soon, if not already, dominate the nuclear balance. 

U.S. STRATCOM Commander, Admiral Charles Richard, as reported by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times (12 August 2021), warns China is building silos for “350-400 new long-range missiles” like the DF-41 ICBM, that carries 10 warheads.  Consequently: “If 10 warheads are deployed on the DF-41s, China’s warhead level will increase to 4,000 warheads on the DF-41 alone.”

4,000 DF-41 ICBM warheads alone would give China a 10-to-1 advantage over the United States’ 400 ICBM warheads, and nearly a 3-to-1 advantage over the 1,400 operationally deployed U.S. strategic nuclear weapons on all ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers.

China already has a nuclear first-strike capability against the U.S. 400 ICBM silos, 3 bomber bases, 2 SSBN ports, and C3I targets comprising the U.S. nuclear deterrent.  China’s existing DF-41 ICBMs have enough warheads with yield/accuracy combinations capable of achieving 90% single-shot-kill-probability against the hardest U.S. targets.

Dr. Mark Schneider, a former senior Defense Department official and prominent nuclear strategist, in his excellent article “The Chinese Nuclear Breakout and the Biden Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review” (Real Clear Defense 28 August 2021), makes a compelling case that U.S. ICBMs and SLBMs lack yield/accuracy sufficient to destroy China’s hardest targets, including ICBM silos that may be hardened to 30,000 psi (U.S. ICBM silos are hardened to 2,000 psi).

Moreover, U.S. retaliatory capabilities against counterforce targets in China—including ICBM silos, missile tunnels, mobile missiles, bomber and SSBN bases, C3I bunkers, and the 5,000 kilometers long “Underground Great Wall”—are grossly inadequate.

China, Russia, North Korea: Nuclear Triad

China’s race toward nuclear domination of the U.S. probably accounts for why Beijing appears to have retracted its nuclear “No First Use” pledge.

Recently, China threatened a nuclear first strike against Australia for buying U.S. nuclear-powered (not nuclear-armed) submarines.

In July, an “unofficial” website (Xigua Video) affiliated with the People’s Liberation Army threatened:

--“Now the international situation has changed dramatically…In order to protect the peaceful rise of our country, it is necessary to make limited adjustments to our nuclear policy.”

--“When we liberate Taiwan, if Japan dares to intervene by force, even if it deploys only one soldier, one plane and one ship..we will use nuclear bombs first.  We will use nuclear bombs continuously until Japan declares unconditional surrender for the second time.”        

--“We’ll join force with Russia and North Korea [to] shoot together to hit the Japanese mainland thoroughly and in full depth.”
--“After defeating Japan, we must take more severe measures than in World War II to partition Japan…by dividing the four Japanese islands into four independent states…China and Russia should each formulate its own Peace Constitution, and each of the four countries should be placed under the administration of China and Russia, with China and Russia stationing troops.”
 
Victorious in a nuclear war over Taiwan, would China be more merciful to its chief opponent, the United States, than to Japan?  In the above, substitute “Japan” with the “United States” for the “unofficial” PLA vision of the post-war.
Russia and North Korea have made no official denial that they would join with China in a nuclear war against the United States.  Indeed, China, Russia, and North Korea are strategic partners.  China and Russia have conducted major military exercises together, including at least one strategic forces exercise postulating a nuclear war with the U.S. over Taiwan.
In 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy did not face a coalition of three nuclear powers.
China’s most compelling reason for conquering Taiwan is for ownership of the future—and this probably makes war inevitable.  China needs Taiwan as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” to defend itself and to dominate the South China Sea and the Pacific.  No empire aspiring to world dominance will tolerate a rival in their own backyard.
 
What Is To Be Done?
Given rapidly growing nuclear threats from China, Russia, North Korea and the proximity of nuclear confrontation over Taiwan, the Biden Administration’s failure to publicly spurn Democrats calling for unilaterally banning U.S. ICBMs, banning SLCMs, deep reductions in nuclear weapons, Minimum Deterrence, a U.S. “No First Use Pledge” etc. etc., is suicidal. 
Not only are these anti-nuclear policies irrational, but their vociferous proposal risks “sending the wrong message” to China, Russia, and North Korea at a perilous time.  Their message of weakness, combined with the Afghanistan debacle, is far worse than Secretary of State Dean Acheson’s “wrong message” in 1950 that helped start the Korean War.
What is needed is another President John F. Kennedy or President Ronald Reagan, who invested in “Peace Through Strength” by building a nuclear deterrent “second to none,” and who understood weakness is an invitation to World War III.  President Biden has an opportunity to follow their good example in the Nuclear Posture Review and by greatly accelerating and expanding U.S. nuclear deterrent modernization.
Nuclear strength enabled President Kennedy to win the Cuban missile crisis without war.  Nuclear strength enabled President Reagan to win the Cold War peacefully.
U.S. nuclear inferiority will be tantamount to surrender in the New Cold War.             
 
 

Suppose a hostile, confrontational neighbor, angry with you for years over seemingly everything, ranging from borrowed money to property boundaries, called you in the middle of the night to say: “Don’t worry. I don’t plan to kill you. If I do come to murder you, I will warn you first.”

What would you do?:

a) Go back to sleep.
b) Call the police.
c) Prepare to defend yourself.

If you are a normal person, you would probably: (b) Call the police and (c) Prepare to defend yourself.

If you are Communist China and you received such a call from the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, you would probably: (b) alert Chairman Xi Jinping and other political-military leaders of the PRC and (c) mobilize nuclear and conventional forces to defend yourself.

If you are Communist China, depending upon how seriously you regard General Milley, you might also at least consider (d) launching a preemptive nuclear strike to kill General Milley and the United States, before they kill you.

According to the new book “Peril” by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, something like the above actually happened, but in their telling President Trump is supposed to be the bad guy, and General Milley the hero.

Reportedly, “Peril” co-author Robert Costa said: “General Milley became so concerned about Mr. Trump’s mental state that he assembled senior military leaders and advised them not to carry out a presidential order to launch a nuclear strike unless he was there.”

Allegedly, on October 30, General Miley called his counterpart in China, General Li Zuocheng, supposedly to reassure China’s top general, commander of the People’s Liberation Army, that the U.S. had no immediate plans to make a surprise nuclear strike or other attack on China: “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”

Allegedly, on January 8, two days after protestors occupied the U.S. Capitol, General Milley called General Li supposedly to again reassure him that the U.S. was not heading toward anarchy that could result in a nuclear surprise attack on China: “Things may look unsteady. But that’s the nature of democracy, General Li. We are 100 percent steady.”

“Peril” authors Woodward and Costa are no fans of President Trump, have a history of propagandizing, and their story clearly fits the leftwing media’s unending campaign to discredit Trump and convince Trump voters they made a mistake.

However, General Milley and his spokesman Colonel David Butler issued a classic Washington “nondenial denial” that appears to confirm the JCS Chairman called General Li to tell him a U.S. surprise nuclear attack was not imminent: “His calls with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability.”

But there is no evidence China needed reassuring or that strategic stability was imperiled. Nuclear strategic instability with China resulting from the contentious U.S. elections was all in General Milley’s head.

What else is in General Milley’s head?

JCS Chairman Milley is a believer in “white rage” and Marxist “critical race theory” that condemns Western Civilization as evil and deserving destruction.

General Milley also shares the radical Left’s paranoid aversion to President Trump and conservative and libertarian voters. These Milley’s Defense Department categorizes as potential “domestic violent extremists” to be rooted out of the military.

Nor is it the job of the JCS Chairman, who is the President’s military advisor, to usurp the President’s role or act on such an important matter—involving nuclear war with China—without the President’s knowledge and consent.

Such a head as General Milley’s does not deserve to be on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, let alone JCS Chairman, as proven yet again by his hysterical phone calls to General Li—that might have provoked a nuclear war.

China’s General Li almost certainly had no concerns about a U.S. surprise nuclear attack resulting from the elections, until after receiving “reassurances” from JCS Chairman Milley.

Congressional hearings on this matter—and there ought at minimum to be hearings, if not an emergency congressional commission—should investigate the alert status of China’s nuclear and conventional forces. Is there any evidence of China mobilizing ICBMs or the PLA Air Force or Navy in response to General Milley’s “reassurances”?

“If the allegations are true, General Milley should go down in history as a traitor to the American people,” tweeted Rep. Andy Biggs. Biggs’visceral reaction shows much sounder judgment than the considered opinions of President Biden and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

President Biden and Defense Secretary Austin have nothing but praise for General Milley. They and Democrat media allies are “circling the wagons” to defend the embattled JCS Chairman and fellow Trump-hater.

Democrats and their anti-nuclear political base often argue against modernization of the U.S. nuclear deterrent because, supposedly, they fear accidental nuclear war:

–They want to ban U.S. ICBMs unilaterally to avoid accidental nuclear war.
–They oppose a new U.S. sea-launched cruise missile to avoid accidental nuclear war.
–They oppose the W76-2 tactical nuclear warhead on SLBMs to avoid accidental nuclear war.
–Some oppose virtually any modernization of the U.S. nuclear Triad to avoid “arms racing” that could lead to accidental nuclear war.

But they think not at all about how nuclear “strategic stability” must look to Russia, China, and North Korea, when Democrats lie:

–that there is a big problem with “insurrectionists” and “white supremacists” in the military. Including in ICBM Launch Control Facilities and aboard missile submarines?
–that the January 6 protests were an “insurrection” to overthrow the U.S. government. Could insurrectionists get the launch codes?
–that President Trump was a mentally unstable monster deserving multiple impeachments. Will equally insane Trump loyalists still within the military launch a surprise nuclear attack?
–that neither President Trump or President Biden should be entrusted with authority to launch nuclear missiles without a vote from Congress. Are U.S. Presidents now so demented that even their own people don’t trust them with nuclear weapons?

How to start an accidental nuclear war? Keep talking crap like the above. And keep heads like General Milley’s on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry served as Director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, Chief of Staff of the Congressional EMP Commission, and on the staffs of the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA.  He is author of the books Blackout Warfare (2021) and The Power And The Light (2020).

https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/how-to-start-an-accidental-nuclear-war/

The Power And The Light: The Congressional EMP Commission's War To Save America 2001-2020

by Dr. Peter Vincent Pry

Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) manmade or natural, from solar superstorms, can blackout electric grids and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures putting at risk the lives of millions. 9 of 10 Americans could die from starvation, disease, or societal collapse from a nuclear EMP attack that blacks-out the U.S. for a year. A solar superstorm could blackout electric grids worldwide, putting at risk the lives of billions. A small heroic band of scientists and national security experts serving on the Congressional EMP Commission have been striving for 20 years to protect America from the existential threat that is EMP. Their war to save America from ignorant armies that are the government bureaucracy, electric utility lobbies, and an irresponsible press is not yet won, and may soon be lost.

Blackout Wars: State Initiatives to Achieve Preparedness Against an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Catastrophe

by Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, David Drummond, et al. 2015

Blackout Wars is about the historically unprecedented threat to our electronic civilization from its dependence on the electric power grid. Most Americans have experienced temporary blackouts, and regard them as merely an inconvenience. Some Americans have experienced more protracted local and regional blackouts, as in the aftermaths of Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina, and may be better able to imagine the consequences of a nationwide blackout lasting months or years, that plunges the entire United States into the dark. read more

EMP Manhattan Project

by Dr. Peter Vincent Pry 2018 

The electromagnetic pulse (EMP) threat to the United States is existential and growing. EMPs can occur with a nuclear explosion in space, cyberattacks, terrorist attacks, physical threats or a large coronal mass ejection from the sun, all of which are described in this book. Any of these EMPs could wipe out not only our electric grid, but anything with a computer chip in it, sending the U.S. back to the 1850s. Within a year after grid failure, the EMP Commission tells us that 9 out of 10 Americans will succumb to dehydration, starvation, gang and other violence, murder, suicide, breakdown of society and diseases. The government needs to take action now by forming an EMP Manhattan Project that focuses on hardening our electric grid. If it doesn't, those who survive will be existing in a country unrecognizable. read more

Civil-Military Preparedness For An Electromagnetic Pulse Catastrophe

by Dr. Peter Vincent Pry  

In my long experience, no other single issue has been such a scientific and national security conundrum as electromagnetic pulse (EMP). The phenomenon itself is not easy to explain to non-scientists, be they policymakers, generals, or ordinary citizens. The EMP threat seems like the stuff of science fiction. Yet your life depends upon understanding EMP.  

by Dr. Peter Vincent Pry

Why do some American intelligence officials maintain fallout shelters and private contingency plans to evacuate their families in the event of a Russian nuclear strike―even in today's post-Cold War era of U.S.-Russian partnership? The frightening answer lies within the pages of War Scare, a terrifying assessment of the prospect for nuclear holocaust in our day. Written by Peter Vincent Pry, a former CIA military analyst, War Scare provides a history of our country's little-known brushes with nuclear war and warns that, contrary to popular opinion and the assurances of our political leaders, the possibility of a Russian attack still exists. Nuclear deterrence has been the foundation of Western security for the last 50 years, but since the end of the Cold War, Russian military doctrine has become more destabilizing, and much more dangerous, than is commonly believed. read more

Poseidon: Russia's New Doomsday Machine

by Dr. Peter Vincent Pry | Jun 14, 2018   "POSEIDON: Russia's New Doomsday Machine" describes Moscow's unmanned automated drone submarine designed to deliver a 100-megaton warhead to inundate U.S. coasts with nuclear tsunamis, leaving the most populous parts of America radioactive wastelands. Is this the real purpose of POSEIDON? What are the strategic implications of this new doomsday weapon, the latest in a series of Russian doomsday machines? What are the implications of the marriage in POSEIDON of Artificial Intelligence with the most powerful nuclear weapon ever built? Author Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is one of the nation's foremost experts on nuclear weapons and strategy. Pry is Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, both Congressional Advisory Boards. He served as Chief of Staff of the Congressional EMP Commission, on the staffs of the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission and the House Armed Services Committee, and in the CIA.