Over the past few years, Russia has increasingly been spouting nuclear rhetoric to scare America and Europe into getting its way. Vladimir Putin recently said he considered mobilizing his nuclear forces as he seized Ukrainian territory.
Since then, Russia has threatened to target NATO ally Denmark with nuclear weapons if Copenhagen joins the alliance's missile defense program. Moscow has made the same threat against Poland and Romania, which have already agreed to host NATO missile defense sites.
Russia is backing this rhetoric with renewed investment in nuclear weapons, missiles and new submarines, as well as snap exercises of the forces that would employ them.
While that combination is what gives Russia's messaging some teeth, it is also both irresponsible and incredible given the US, Britain and France are nuclear powers, and Washington has atomic weapons in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey.
And despite some high-profile missteps, the US retains the world's most powerful and reliable nuclear force.
Post-Cold War leaders had the luxury of not worrying about nuclear weapons every day, prompting some to believe we live in a post-nuclear world.
While President Barack Obama's goal of a nuclear-free world is a noble one, even he concedes that it won't be achieved anytime soon. That is why his administration has rightly pledged to retain the nuclear triad and revitalize America's nuclear infrastructure.
And with good reason. China, India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan are nuclear states as well, and the international community has been working for many years to prevent Iran from joining the club.
The awesome potential of nuclear weapons doesn't define, but underpins, national power. Forgetting that fact only makes the United States and its allies vulnerable to nuclear intimidation whether by Putin or anyone else.
As long as nuclear-armed adversaries are brutish enough to invade their neighbors and threaten them with nuclear weapons, America and its allies must continue to invest in nuclear capabilities.
Britain is investing in a new generation of ballistic missile submarines to maintain its continuous at-sea deterrence, while the United States is ramping up its effort to develop a new generation of even more stealthy and capable missile subs of its own to replace the aging Ohio class.
Despite budget pressures, the Ohio Replacement Program must remain a priority given the sea-based leg of America's nuclear triad is the most survivable.
Equally important is to revitalize the other two legs of the US triad — land-based bombers and ICBMs — command and control systems as well as the nation's nuclear industrial infrastructure that is quite literally crumbling. A new nuclear cruise missile should also be developed.
Abroad, nations that will operate the Joint Strike Fighter will also have a nuclear delivery capability now satisfied by jets like the F-16 and Tornado. France's Rafale is nuclear-capable as well.
Nuclear training for both civilian and military leaders must also become a US and NATO priority.
A generation of political leaders has matured without regularly undergoing the kind of rigorous nuclear training and terrifyingly realistic exercises that were commonplace during the Cold War.
If your adversary is ramping up its nuclear game, it's dangerous to assume it's merely a bluff. Unlike Russia, the United States and its NATO partners have to step up their game because for nuclear deterrence to work, it must be credible.
