The ladder of escalation is an armchair strategist’s concoction. It leads to the frightening final rung: spasm/insensate war — global devastation from an all-out, intercontinental exchange of nuclear weapons.
A more realistic view is that the first nuclear shot, if devastating enough but not too devastating, would be the final nuclear shot. The polity that fires the first shot would attain whatever it sought because the polity that receives the first shot wouldn’t want to retaliate and thereby invite further devastation upon its territory and people.
In the present environment, the polity that fires the first shot might be Russia (to stop U.S.-NATO intervention in its war on Ukraine) or China (to prevent U.S. intervention in its seizure of Taiwan and the South China Sea).
Where do the balloons come in? Suppose they are tests by China of NORAD, the U.S.-Canada early-warning and air-defense system that dates back to the 1950s. Devised originally to deter and defend against Soviet strikes, it serves the same purpose today against a somewhat larger array of potential attackers (Russia, China, North Korea, and eventually Iran).
It’s true that there have been incursions before the recent “spy balloon” incident and its successors. But given the parlous state of U.S.-China relations, these recent incursions could be ominous (in the second meaning of the word).
In addition to Biden’s strange reluctance to shoot down the balloon that spent days over the U.S. (his usual lies to the contrary notwithstanding), there’s his history of military fecklessness: his opposition to the raid that took out bin Laden and his disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The spate of shootdowns after the big-balloon fiasco does nothing (in a potential enemy’s view) to rescue Biden’s reputation. The recent shootdowns would be rightly viewed as p.r. stunts, executed in a vain effort to make Biden look tough.
Even if I’m right about the purpose for the balloon incursions, I’m not suggesting that China is about to throw a missile at the U.S. or a place that the U.S. values. China’s leaders, unlike the West’s, can play the “long game”. What’s done today need not bear fruit for years or decades.
In the meantime, the Chinese have American “leaders” scratching their heads and bickering about what China is up to. On the evidence to date, China’s leaders can proceed with impunity when it’s time to go nuclear. The election of 2024 could well change that view, which suggests that China is likely to act sooner rather than later.
Just as I was finishing this post, I discovered a piec that reinforces my view of the game that China is playing: James Holmes, “That Downed Chinese Balloon Wasn’t Exactly For Spying. It Was A ‘Trial’ Balloon”, 1945, February 4, 2023. (Hat tip to Bill Vallicella.)
Roger, thanks for reading and many thanks for your comments. Here are my thoughts. I welcome your rejoinder.
True, your questions are unanswered. Only Xi and his inner circle know what's going on. My hypothesis -- Biden and company are being tested -- is only that because I'm not in the inner circle. :-)
It seems to me that taking out the leadership that ordered an initial nuclear strike would be considered escalatory (unless that leadership's first shot was aimed at our leadership). In any event, thinking about the problem as a leader who puts the welfare of his citizens first (i.e., not as a macho street brawler), the prolongation of hostilities, by any means, only puts them at risk. Does that mean de facto surrender (standing down)? It would depend on the stakes. If it meant de facto surrender of Ukraine or Taiwan, I might bluff retaliation of some kind (even escalatory) to see where it gets me. But in the end, I wouldn't put Ukraine or Taiwan above the lives of tens of millions of Americans. On the other hand, if the stakes were the subjection of Americans to a foreign dictatorship, I would have already put in place electronic and missile defenses that would save the lives of the vast majority of Americans (if that's possible), then order a devastating counter-strike that would deny the ability of the bad guys to answer in kind. Some would call that a destabilizing strategy. I would call it a winning one, given the alternative of living under the thumb of a foreign dictator. I don't have the tickets to know if we have the necessary defenses, but if I were king we would have acquired them long ago.
On the other hand, the choice between living under a foreign dictatorship and the one that is developing in the U.S. is no longer as stark as it was, even 15 years ago.
Unanswered: why so many, and why, suddenly, now? Are they to fill gaps in intel/surveillance antecedent to something else? Could be a very concerning precursor to something else...
Also: If U.S. territory attacked with nuclear weapon, U.S. must retaliate, lest it announce "open season" on potential attackers. Retaliation need not be escalatory. For example, precision strikes aimed to take out the leadership that ordered the nuclear attack. Retaliatory strikes can be kinetic, non-kinetic, by assassins, or ...but they must be recognized as retaliatory, and they must be effective (or continued until effective). RWB