In Just 2 Hours, the US Could Make Russia and China Disappear – Here’s How!

A recent study claims that the United States and its allies have the capability to neutralize all of Russia and China’s nuclear launch sites within just two hours, using only conventional weapons. This bold statement, made by two British researchers, has stirred intense debate in the defense community. The study, titled “Masters of the Air: Strategic Stability and Conventional Strikes,” argues that advancements in conventional military technology could make nuclear deterrence less significant.

However, not everyone is convinced. Matt Shoemaker, a former U.S. intelligence officer who specialized in Chinese and Russian nuclear forces, is skeptical. “That is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence to support it,” Shoemaker remarked. His years of experience monitoring the nuclear capabilities of both nations lead him to question the study’s conclusions. “This particular report does not hold up from what I can see.”

Shoemaker expressed doubts about the feasibility of the U.S. and its allies eliminating the nuclear capabilities of both Russia and China so quickly. His immediate reaction to the report was to ask, “Who is making this claim?” He points out that the claim originates from Professor Dan Plesch, co-author of the “Masters of the Air” study, whose background may not align with the gravity of such military assessments.

Professor Plesch, currently a professor of diplomacy and strategy at SOAS University of London, has long been involved in disarmament efforts. His interest in nuclear threats began in his youth. “Back in the 1960s, as a teenager, I was extremely interested in the nuclear threat and subscribed to the International Institute for Strategic Studies journals before I went to college,” Plesch shared.

He has been involved in anti-nuclear campaigns since the 1970s and founded the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) in 1985, focusing on nuclear disarmament. In recent years, Plesch has shifted his focus toward conventional weapons, specifically the concept of “conventional counterforce,” where non-nuclear weapons are used to neutralize an enemy’s nuclear arsenal.

According to Plesch, conventional weapons technology has advanced to the point where the U.S. could potentially eliminate the nuclear capabilities of Russia and China without resorting to nuclear strikes. He points to programs such as Rapid Dragon, which utilizes cargo planes to deploy cruise missiles, and the increasing dominance of stealth aircraft in military operations as evidence of the U.S. military’s superior capabilities.

Plesch warns that this growing imbalance could trigger a new arms race. While the West may see its buildup of conventional weapons as a deterrent, he argues that China and Russia likely view it as a direct threat to their strategic stability. This, in turn, could lead to heightened tensions between the two sides, increasing the risk of conflict. “If you have this level of misunderstanding and weapons development, it enhances the risk of major war, whether conventional or nuclear,” Plesch cautioned.

For Plesch, the path forward lies in renewed disarmament efforts. He believes that both nuclear and conventional disarmament should become a global priority once again. He hopes his study will ignite conversations about the dangers of unchecked military advancements and the potential consequences of a new arms race.

However, Shoemaker remains unconvinced by Plesch’s arguments. He believes that the study oversimplifies several complex issues, particularly the difficulty of tracking Russian nuclear submarines and the overreliance on Western air power. “If that were the case, the Cold War would have been a joke, as if we had nothing to worry about,” Shoemaker noted.

Shoemaker also pointed out that both Russia and China have made substantial investments in their nuclear programs, a clear indication of their importance to national security. He warns against treating the issue lightly. “To treat this issue flippantly is concerning because it could drive adversaries to overreact and allow us to become complacent,” he said.

As the debate over the potential of conventional strikes to neutralize nuclear forces continues, it’s clear that the stakes are high. The study may spark new discussions about the future of warfare and the role of nuclear weapons in global security, but it also raises important questions about how nations perceive their security and the risks involved in misunderstanding military intentions.