The US-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket System is dramatically turning the tide of the war in Ukraine against the Russians six months into the invasion. If the Russians cannot neutralize this sophisticated weapon, will they be forced in desperation to either leave Ukraine or elevate the war into the next level, namely, the nuclear option?

The Pentagon, gloating on the HIMARS success, is perhaps ignoring this possibility, arguing that the Russians, in spite of many past "psywar" threats, will never dare resort to the nuclear option, which may destroy the entire planet. It was the same logic of the Americans that Japan would not be stupid enough to attack Pearl Harbor in spite of repeated warnings, which eventually caught them flat-footed.

The Pentagon announced on 3 August that the Russian report that they have destroyed many HIMARS is a "false claim," which is easy to believe because of the many videos shown in social media of the destructive power of the HIMARS against bridges, trains, ammunition depots, tanks, command centers and elite military personnel. The Pentagon reports that, as of this writing, there are only 16 HIMARS in the Ukraine yielding such devastation.

What makes the HIMARS dangerous as a catalyst to a nuclear war is the fact that it is being launched by Americans, not Ukrainians, from American soil using satellites, based on intel data from the warfront, where Ukrainians feed precise field target locations. The US is virtually waging the war against Russia by remote control with invisible presence. There are no face-to-face encounters between US and Russian troops, just American weapons they run from long distances using all available intel information. It is a digital war. Yet it is a dangerously "gray area" direct eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between the US and Russia.

If the Russians locate these sites on the US continent, they may decide to try to take them out using long-range ICBMs, nuclear or non-nuclear. Or they may use Electro-Magnetic Weapons to jam the HIMARS rocket, although this needs quick reaction, which is untested. They can also use the silent EMW on the HIMARS headquarters in the US. Finally, they can fire precision lasers on the satellites, which may necessarily invite a US retaliation, triggering perhaps a "satellite laser war" never before seen in history.

How much of a game-changer really is the HIMARS? First advantage is mobility. The medium-sized trucks carrying the HIMARS six small rockets (GMLRS) or one big rocket (ATACMS) move instantly upon firing its rockets from a forest cover to new locations to avoid retaliation by Russian missiles. Second advantage is extreme high precision at half-meter accuracy. Russian colonels and generals pinpointed by US intel have reportedly been killed by HIMARS, just like the Iranian general, remember? Third advantage is a relatively longer range of 50 to 100 miles than ordinary artillery systems that can penetrate deep into Russian occupied zones. The ATACMS has a much longer range.