Feedback in Nuclear Weapon Control Systems and Society

Precision Kinetic Missiles (PKMs) like the Oreshnik, some say, are a game changer.  Yet missiles are still being fired into Russia from Ukraine with NATO’s help.  The argument in this paper is that PKMs will not be a game changer unless they are part of a larger system with adequate feedback.  

We are now on the edge of a nuclear war, an apocalypse with no winner.  No nations will remain.  There will be no democracy.  If any people survive, they will be in survival mode.  The situation now is more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis with talk of preemptive strikes by Rear Admiral Buchannan who himself does not realize that we cannot “win”.  He is not getting the information, the feedback that he needs to make better decisions.  But he is not alone.  More nations now believe they will be safer if they obtain nuclear weapons.  This may seem true if leaders see no other options or pathway to ensure their safety.  

Because of the ever-shortening time period to make a decision whether to launch a nuclear weapon (now 5-10 minutes), the first use of any nuclear weapon is likely to begin an all-out nuclear war and the end of humanity.  This risk is increased if there is no direct connection between the White House and the Kremlin.  

Complex systems cannot operate without good feedback to keep the system stable.  This feedback is often from sensors that may be quite small but that give important signals under specific conditions.  What we call international politics is a type of system that is quite complex, but it is still a system.  

Examples of feedback:  1.  The thermostat that helps to regulate the temperature of a room.  In most cases this can be adjusted by people in the room, though that may not be true in large conference rooms.  2.  Airplane landing gear must be in an up or down position.  This information on landing gear position is sent from the sensor directly to the decision maker – the pilot.  3. The human body has many systems that work together. Each system has sensors that detect changes and give feedback directly to keep that system stable.  The person’s brain may or may not be aware of any changes.  It is a marvel of engineering and worthy of study.   

Leaders in international politics are imagined to be in control.  We assume they have the necessary information to make good decisions.  Comparisons to a chess game are often used but one thing that Prime Minister Netanyahu has shown us is that leaders who think they are grand masters are actually part of the game and can be taken out.  

The power of PKMs is reflected in the words: “Precision” means it will hit the target exactly.  “Kinetic” refers to the fact that the missile is going so fast at supersonic speeds that it needs no payload to explode.  The kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity and all of this energy will easily destroy the target.  Supersonic speeds also mean – as of this date – that there is no way of stopping or intercepting them.  

If one steps back and looks at the whole system, PKM’s make sense if they are under the control of small groups of nations and pointed to the head and critical infrastructure of the nearby larger nuclear states.   PKMs are thus only a game changer if part of a larger System feedback design.   Three countries, both nuclear and non-nuclear act as one sensor and must agree to fire their PKMs at the Headquarters of Nuclear Nations if anynuclear weapons are detonated.  Misfiring of a PKM by accident will not be nearly so destructive as a nuclear weapon, and the reasons for the misfire of the PKM can be found and corrected.  

PKMs can be given to or developed by groups of 3 non-nuclear, smaller countries to start this system of feedback, even if the larger nuclear countries decline.   Larger nuclear countries will join when they realize that this system is safer.  We can then begin to de-construct all nuclear weapons. 

If nuclear weapons are gone, the feared power shift from West to East will not be so large and imbalances can be addressed in other ways.  If 2025 is to be anything, it must be the year to construct feedback loops, especially for control of nuclear weapons.  This effort can start at any level, from Discussion and Discovery Groups, to the Congressional level. 

John Suter Communication Research

January 1, 2025