| Listen to our audio presentation: History of the US Supreme Court |
On November 19, 2024, Ukraine escalated its conflict with Russia by launching U.S.-supplied Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) at a military facility in Russia’s Bryansk region. Located approximately 70 miles from the border, this target marked the first known use of ATACMS in the war. These missiles, capable of hitting targets with precision up to 190 miles away, represent a significant shift in Ukraine’s strategy. Recent U.S. policy changes enabled the deployment, highlighting Ukraine’s reliance on international military aid to enhance its offensive capabilities.
- Escalation in Ukraine Conflict: Ukraine’s deployment of U.S.-supplied ATACMS marks a strategic shift, enabling precision strikes deep into Russian territory and amplifying Ukraine’s offensive capabilities.
- Nuclear Tensions Rise: Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine lowers the threshold for weapon use, signaling heightened risks of nuclear confrontation amid intensifying NATO involvement.
- Global Security and Economic Impacts: NATO’s expanded role, including British-supplied missiles, prolongs hostilities and raises international security concerns, while defense companies like Lockheed Martin benefit financially.
- Strategic Posturing: Russian nuclear submarines near U.S. coastlines highlight enduring tensions between nuclear powers, reviving concerns over Mutual Assured Destruction and global vulnerability.
NATO Expands Involvement with Advanced Weaponry
These missile strikes were part of broader NATO-supported operations aimed at degrading Russian military infrastructure. Additional attacks occurred in the Kursk and Rostov regions using British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles. NATO leaders defended the strikes as necessary to counter ongoing Russian aggression. However, Moscow labeled these actions as provocations by NATO member states, further fueling tensions.
Russia’s Response and Escalation Risks
In reaction to the escalating conflict, Russian President Vladimir Putin updated the nation’s nuclear doctrine. The revised policy lowers the threshold for deploying nuclear weapons in response to conventional attacks supported by nuclear-armed allies. This decision has significantly raised the risk of broader escalation. Analysts caution that such developments could prolong the conflict and further undermine opportunities for a peaceful resolution.
Economic and Strategic Impacts
The conflict’s economic and technological dimensions are also drawing attention. Lockheed Martin, the U.S. defense contractor behind ATACMS, has experienced a rise in stock prices. This reflects increased confidence in the value of its defense technologies. On the Russian side, military posturing includes the deployment of nuclear-powered submarines near U.S. coastlines. These activities showcase the strategic reach of Russia’s forces and echo the Cold War-era doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
The Return of Mutual Assured Destruction
MAD, once central to Cold War strategy, has resurfaced as a critical concern. The doctrine relies on the assumption that nuclear conflict would lead to the total annihilation of all parties involved. While MAD has historically deterred nuclear war, current tensions between NATO and Russia test its effectiveness. A global nuclear exchange would likely lead to catastrophic consequences, including radioactive fallout and nuclear winter. No region would be entirely shielded from these effects.
The ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia underscores a precarious geopolitical balance. Military actions, policy shifts, and technological advances continue to shape a volatile situation with far-reaching implications for international security and stability.
Types of Missiles Launched:
The strikes involved the deployment of U.S.-supplied Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and British-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles. The ATACMS, known for their precision and extended range, have been a subject of debate regarding their use in the conflict. The Storm Shadow missiles, with a range exceeding 250 kilometers, are designed for deep strikes against high-value targets.
Targets:
The missile strikes targeted strategic military installations within Russia, including command centers, ammunition depots, and air defense systems. Notably, facilities in the Kursk and Rostov regions were hit, areas previously considered secure from such attacks.
International Response:
Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the strikes, labeling them as acts of aggression and warning of severe repercussions. In response, Russia has reportedly lowered its nuclear threshold, indicating a willingness to consider the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation.
NATO officials have justified the strikes as necessary measures to counter ongoing Russian military actions and to support Ukraine’s defense efforts. The alliance emphasized that the operations were conducted in accordance with international law and were aimed at degrading Russia’s capacity to wage war.
Implications:
This development signifies a substantial escalation in the conflict, with NATO’s direct involvement likely to have far-reaching consequences for international security and geopolitical stability. The situation remains highly volatile, with the potential for further escalation if diplomatic solutions are not pursued.
The launch of U.S.-supplied Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) into Russian territory, marking the first use of these long-range missiles in the conflict. The strikes targeted a military facility in Russia’s Bryansk region, approximately 70 miles from the Ukrainian border.
The ATACMS is a surface-to-surface missile system capable of striking targets up to 190 miles away with high precision. This development follows the U.S. decision to authorize Ukraine’s use of these missiles against military targets inside Russia, a significant policy shift aimed at bolstering Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.
In response to these events, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree updating Russia’s nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for nuclear weapon use in retaliation to conventional attacks supported by nuclear-armed states.
This escalation underscores the increasing complexity and risks associated with the ongoing conflict, highlighting the critical need for diplomatic efforts to prevent further deterioration of regional and global security.
ATACMS: Manufactured by Lockheed Martin, Powering Ukraine’s Long-Range Strikes
The Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) is a surface-to-surface missile developed by Lockheed Martin, designed for long-range precision strikes.
Cost: The unit cost of an ATACMS missile is approximately $1.5 million.
Production Timeline: ATACMS development began in the 1980s, with the first variant, the MGM-140A Block I, entering service in 1991. Subsequent variants, such as the MGM-140B Block IA, were introduced in 1998. Production continued into the early 2000s, with life-extension programs initiated in 2016 to maintain and upgrade existing stockpiles.
Design Features: ATACMS missiles are notable for their versatility and precision:
Launch Platforms: They can be fired from both the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), providing flexibility in deployment.
Guidance System: Equipped with an inertial navigation system augmented by GPS, ATACMS offers high accuracy over long distances.
Warhead Variants: The missile accommodates different payloads, including unitary high-explosive warheads and submunitions, allowing it to engage a variety of target types
Range and Speed: Certain variants can reach targets up to 300 kilometers away, traveling at supersonic speeds, which enhances their effectiveness against time-sensitive and high-value targets.
These features make ATACMS a critical asset for precision long-range strikes in modern military operations.
On November 19, 2024, Lockheed Martin Corporation’s (NYSE: LMT) stock closed at $533.26, reflecting a slight increase of $2.25 (0.42%) from the previous close. The stock’s intraday performance included a high of $539.56 and a low of $531.02. This modest uptick aligns with the company’s recent activities, including the deployment of its ATACMS missiles in Ukraine, which may have influenced investor sentiment.
Russian Submarines
Russian submarines have been detected operating near U.S. coastlines in recent years. For instance, in June 2024, a Russian naval group, including a nuclear-powered submarine, conducted missile exercises and approached within 30 miles of the Florida coast.
These submarines are typically nuclear-powered, such as the Yasen-M-class (Project 885M) and Borei-class (Project 955) vessels. The Yasen-M-class submarines are equipped with a variety of cruise missiles, including the Kalibr (SS-N-27 Sizzler) and P-800 Oniks (SS-N-26 Strobile), capable of striking land and sea targets.
The Borei-class submarines carry RSM-56 Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), which are integral to Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent.
The presence of these submarines near U.S. waters underscores the strategic capabilities of the Russian Navy and highlights the importance of monitoring such activities to maintain national security.
Internet Kill Switch
The concept of an “Internet kill switch” refers to the theoretical ability to shut down or significantly restrict access to the internet within a country, typically for national security reasons. Here’s an overview of its legal basis, history, and implications in the United States:
Does an Internet Kill Switch Exist in the U.S.?
Yes, there is a framework that could be interpreted as granting such powers:
The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, gives the President authority to shut down or control communication systems in times of war or national emergency.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and related policies expand federal powers in critical infrastructure scenarios, including telecommunications.
However, there is no single “kill switch” mechanism to instantly disable the entire internet. Such a process would require coordination with private companies and telecommunications providers.
Who Implemented the Authority?
The authority stems from laws and orders that have evolved over decades:
Executive Order 13636 (2013) under President Barack Obama: Focused on improving cybersecurity, but it laid the groundwork for government oversight of critical infrastructure, including the internet.
The President’s existing powers under the Communications Act were reaffirmed but not explicitly expanded.
No President has publicly declared or enacted a specific “internet kill switch” mechanism.
What Would Happen If the Internet Were Shut Down?
If an “internet kill switch” were activated:
Economic Impact:
Severe disruptions in banking, commerce, and supply chains.
Millions of businesses dependent on cloud services and online communication would be paralyzed.
Social and Political Consequences:
Public outcry and unrest due to communication blackouts.
Difficulty in verifying information or organizing protests.
National Security:
Intended to prevent the spread of misinformation or cyberattacks.
Could inadvertently disrupt emergency response systems and vital services.
Could Martial Law Be Declared?
Yes, but under very specific and extreme circumstances:
Martial law in the U.S. can be declared only in cases of dire threats to national security, widespread civil unrest, or major attacks on critical infrastructure.
An internet shutdown alone would not automatically justify martial law, but it could accompany other measures during a severe crisis.
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is a military strategy and national security policy that posits a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would result in the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. This doctrine emerged during the Cold War, primarily between the United States and the Soviet Union, to deter either side from initiating a nuclear conflict.
Nuclear Weapon Stockpiles:
As of 2024, Russia possesses the largest nuclear arsenal, with approximately 5,889 nuclear warheads. The United States follows with around 5,244 warheads. Other nuclear-armed nations include China, France, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea, each with varying stockpile sizes.
Safety of the Southern Hemisphere:
The Southern Hemisphere is generally considered less likely to be directly targeted in a nuclear conflict, as it hosts fewer nuclear-armed states and strategic military installations. However, the global effects of nuclear war, such as radioactive fallout and nuclear winter, could still impact the Southern Hemisphere, making it not entirely safe from the consequences of such a conflict.
Further Reading
https://www.huffingtonpost.es/global/este-precio-misiles-alcance-punto-dar-giro-guerra-ucrania.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com