The Defeated West’s Desperation Doctrine: Use of Terrorism and Tactical Nukes

By Helleniscope’s Editorial Staff

In recent months, a series of high-level signals, strategic posture shifts, and unguarded admissions have converged to reveal a dangerous new trajectory in Western military doctrine: the increasing normalization—and possible future use—of tactical nuclear weapons.

Once taboo, tactical nuclear weapons are now being discussed openly by NATO officials, integrated into European military drills, and redeployed via upgraded delivery systems, such as the U.S. B61-12 and Britain’s renewed fleet of F-35A jets. As the West’s conventional advantage erodes, what was once considered unthinkable is now being quietly repositioned as plausible.

RAND Sounds the Alarm

In a recent report titled Thinking Through Protracted War with China: Nine Scenarios (April 2025), the RAND Corporation—long seen as the brain trust of U.S. strategic planning—warned:

“The United States and its allies made conscious choices that increased escalation risk, such as deploying large numbers of tactical nuclear weapons in West Germany… These moves were not irrational but created a landscape in which small missteps could trigger catastrophe.”
[RAND Report, 2025]

This was not an isolated warning. RAND’s European wing issued a companion study stating:

“Entanglement of conventional and nuclear systems… increases the risk that a conventional conflict could inadvertently escalate into nuclear war.” [RAND Europe, 2025]

Meanwhile, NATO’s “Steadfast Noon” nuclear sharing exercises—still involving U.S. nuclear bombs in Europe and European pilots training to deliver them—continue to blur the line between deterrence and deployment.

UK, France, and the Rebirth of Euro-Nuclear Posture

Britain recently announced the reintroduction of air-launched tactical nuclear capabilities via 12 U.S.-made F-35A fighters, with formal justification outlined in the UK’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review:

“To ensure credible deterrence in a multi-polar world, the United Kingdom will maintain a flexible response capability, including the potential reestablishment of a non-strategic air-based nuclear delivery option.” [UK MOD, 2025]

France, for its part, has signaled willingness to extend its nuclear umbrella beyond national borders. In a joint declaration with Britain this month—called the Northward Declaration—President Macron stated:

“France stands ready to consult with any European state seeking nuclear reassurance, in coordination with our British allies.” [Reuters, 2025]

The Strategic Collapse Driving Nuclear Desperation

These nuclear moves are not emerging from strength—they are emerging from acknowledged strategic failure.

In a startling admission this year, former U.S. Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland told German media:

“The Ukrainians will have to switch to sabotage and insurgency tactics inside Russian territory… We are not winning this war in the way we hoped.”
[[Bild interview, March 2025]]

This echoes growing consensus across Western think tanks that the West has lost the war in Ukraine, and worse, has fallen behind in the global arms race.

Consider the evidence:

• Hypersonic Missile Gap: The U.S. remains years behind Russia and China in deploying viable hypersonic weapons. The U.S. Air Force’s AGM-183A ARRW project was canceled after multiple test failures [[The Drive, 2024]].

• Iron Dome Penetrated: In April 2024, Iran’s combined drone and missile assault overwhelmed Israel’s Iron Dome and David’s Sling systems, allowing dozens of projectiles to penetrate supposedly impenetrable air defenses [[Al Jazeera, WSJ]].

• Houthi Naval Dominance: The Yemeni Houthis have blocked the Red Sea, destroying Western prestige. They successfully downed two F‑22 Raptors and over 25 MQ‑9 Reaper drones (each costing ~$25 million) using Iranian-supplied technology. These attacks forced the U.S. Navy’s USS Eisenhower to withdraw, a historic humiliation for the Pentagon [[Military Watch, RT, SouthFront]].

• NATO Logistics Crisis: U.S. defense contractors struggle to keep up with basic munitions production. Artillery shortages in Ukraine have led to unprecedented rationing. Even the Financial Times reported that “NATO would run out of ammo in 72 hours in a high-intensity conflict.” [[FT, Jan 2025]]

Why So Many Nuclear References Now?

The answer is clear: in the absence of conventional supremacy, nuclear signaling becomes the last tool of coercion.

RAND, the U.K. MOD, and NATO are no longer discussing tactical nukes as Cold War relics, but as active components of modern deterrence. What’s changing is the threshold of usage. Tactical nukes—especially those labeled “low yield”—are being marketed internally as “flexible” responses that “don’t necessarily provoke strategic escalation.”

This logic is deeply dangerous. As former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry warned:

“Any use of a nuclear weapon—tactical or strategic—shatters the nuclear taboo and makes escalation almost inevitable.” [[Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists]]

Final Analysis

The West’s increasing references to tactical nuclear weapons signal not strength, but strategic desperation. Having lost the war in Ukraine and fallen behind in the arms race—outmatched in hypersonics, naval control, and missile defense—Western powers are now flirting with the idea of battlefield nukes as a last resort.

What’s most dangerous is not just the weaponry, but the leadership behind it. Russia, China, and Iran have demonstrated remarkable restraint, even in the face of severe provocation. By contrast, figures like Donald Trump, known for impulsive outbursts and erratic decisions, along with the rest of Western leadership figures, who are known mostly for their incompetence, pose a serious risk. Trump’s history of asking, “If we have nukes, why can’t we use them?” underscores the instability of placing nuclear decisions in such hands.

This isn’t deterrence—it’s escalation dressed as strategy. Only diplomacy and restraint can prevent catastrophe.

July 10, 2025, n.stamatakis@aol.com   www.helleniscope.com

DISCLAIMER: The views and statements expressed in this article constitute constitutionally protected opinions of this author.

TO SUPPORT HELLENISCOPE OR BECOME A SUBSCRIBER, LINK HERE!!

Sources:

1. RAND Corporation: Thinking Through Protracted War

2. RAND Europe: Inadvertent Escalation Risks

3. WSJ: UK shifts nuclear doctrine

4. Reuters: France-Britain nuclear pact

5. Bild: Victoria Nuland interview (March 2025)

6. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: William Perry on Nuclear Taboo

7. Financial Times: NATO ammo shortages (Jan 2025)

8. The Drive, Al Jazeera, RT, Military Watch, SouthFront (various sources on Iron Dome, hypersonics, and Red Sea engagements)