A Musing Concerning ATACMS
Table of Contents 📖
| Topic ID | Topic Title | Timestamp |
|---|
"I find it more difficult to accept that people in these positions are going to make stupid decisions when they've made comparable decisions that have been eventually good decisions, right?"
Introduction
Jonathan is pondering the reasons why the US has not provided ATACMS long-range missiles to Ukraine, despite many people being angry about this decision. He wants to explore if there are rational reasons behind this choice.
Return to top⤴️
Rational vs irrational decision-making
- The US government is either making a rational, sound decision or an irrational, stupid one in not providing ATACMS
- It's hard to believe that so many knowledgeable people would make a really dumb decision
- Jonathan leans towards the idea that it must be a rational decision
Analyzing a potential irrational reason
- The only irrational reason Jonathan can think of is avoiding escalation with Russia
- However, the US has already provided many other powerful weapons to Ukraine (HIMARS, tanks, F-16s, etc.)
- The idea of "red lines" that would trigger Russian escalation has been shown to be false
- De-escalation doesn't make sense as a reason to withhold ATACMS specifically
Potential rational reasons for not providing ATACMS
- The US doesn't have enough ATACMS and needs to keep them for its own strategic defense
- ATACMS may be earmarked for a potential conflict with Taiwan rather than Ukraine
- ATACMS aren't being manufactured quickly enough to supply
- ATACMS may not actually be as effective as people think - they could be vulnerable to air defenses
Alternatives to ATACMS
- The US may be secretly helping Ukraine develop and produce the Neptune missile system which can hit targets in Russia
- Ground-launched small diameter bombs (GLSDB) are due to come online soon and could provide similar long-range strike capabilities as ATACMS
- Other weapons like Storm Shadow, SCALP and Taurus cruise missiles are already being used effectively by Ukraine
Why aren't the US clearly communicating their reasoning?
- If the US is providing clandestine support to Ukraine's indigenous long-range weapons, they may not want to reveal this publicly
- Keeping some confusion and ambiguity could be intentional to avoid exposing secret projects
- The US has left the door open to providing ATACMS in the future if the need is dire, but may prefer to avoid it by ensuring Ukraine has alternative long-range strike options
Wrap up
In conclusion, Jonathan believes it is more likely that there are solid, rational reasons behind the decision not to provide Ukraine with ATACMS missiles, even if those reasons cannot be communicated clearly in public. He finds it hard to accept that the Biden administration would overrule the advice of military and foreign policy experts to make an irrational choice, given their track record of eventually agreeing to provide other important weapons systems. While we may not know the exact reasoning, Jonathan cautions against lazy assumptions that the decision is purely based on ignorance or an ill-advised attempt to avoid escalation.
Return to top⤴️