U.S. deploys 'more survivable' submarine-launched low-yield nuclear weapon
reuters.com
reuters.com
The unfortunate thing is that everyone saying that this dangerously lowers the threshold for use of nuclear weapons is right. Deterrence works when there's an oligopoly of nuclear powers. When nuclear weapons proliferate beyond a handful of powerful nation-states, into countries or groups with nothing to lose, there's nothing stopping them from using their nukes. It's like how in the tech patent world pre-2010, people described all these "defensive" patent portfolios as mutually assured destruction, "and then Nokia launched the missiles".
IMHO nuclear winter is a far more likely end of civilization than global warming is.
What sort of response would having low-yield nukes enable? Drop a 1-kiloton bomb on a Chechnyan neighborhood in Russia? That hardly seems less insane. What sort of problems can low-yield nukes address that cruise missiles or guided non-nuclear bombs couldn't?
EDIT:
> "A 5kt nuke that blows up a roughly 150m radius and causes negligible fallout could be used [...] without causing massive diplomatic problems."
I have serious doubts. Even a single atmospheric test of such a nuke in the middle of Nevada would probably cause a diplomatic incident. Why would using such a nuke on foreign soil cause any less trouble?
> What sort of problems can low-yield nukes address that cruise missiles or guided non-nuclear bombs couldn't?
Their sheer explosive power? It would take thousands of cruise missiles to destroy 1945 Hiroshima.
Isn’t this how WW1 started?
Hey your terrorists killed our Duke!!
Yeah so?
You gotta let us send in the army or at least the police!!
No thanks
aaaand alliances pulled everyone into a gruesome war
For example, if you want a 1kt bunker buster using conventional explosives that's gonna be a heck of a bomb and therefore greatly limited in where/when/how it can be used. A 1kt nuke could fit in a JDAM sized form factor and be dropped by pretty much any military aircraft. Similarly, if you want to decimate a city with conventional bombs you'll need to deliver a heck of a lot of bombs. With nukes you only need one.
The point of having low-yield nukes is so you can do precision targeting. A 20mt nuke that blows up a whole city cannot be used if there's a danger that fallout might fall on friendly or neutral territory. A 5kt nuke that blows up a roughly 150m radius and causes negligible fallout could be used on a small training camp, or even a warehouse in a lightly-populated suburban area, without causing massive diplomatic problems.
People want certainty when it comes to nuclear weapons. The only way to get that is not to use them.
It's much more likely the "unwritten rule" you speak of would just shift, where nuclear weapons of a certain payload (probably equivalent to conventional weapons) would be acceptable for use. Government leaders, being acutely aware of MAD, would clearly communicate the new accepted boundaries and proceed from there.
> Russia’s belief that limited nuclear first use, potentially including low-yield weapons, can provide such an advantage is based, in part, on Moscow’s perception that its greater number and variety of non-strategic nuclear systems provide a coercive advantage in crises and at lower levels of conflict. Recent Russian statements on this evolving nuclear weapons doctrine appear to lower the threshold for Moscow’s first-use of nuclear weapons. Russia demonstrates its perception of the advantage these systems provide through numerous exercises and statements. Correcting this mistaken Russian perception is a strategic imperative.
> To address these types of challenges and preserve deterrence stability, the United States will enhance the flexibility and range of its tailored deterrence options. To be clear, this is not intended to, nor does it enable, “nuclear war-fighting.” Expanding flexible U.S. nuclear options now, to include low-yield options, is important for the preservation of credible deterrence against regional aggression. It will raise the nuclear threshold and help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely.
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/201...
To say the purpose is tactical use in war is franking a baseless conspiracy theory, relying on flawed logic that can easily be debunked.
There has not, in fact, been a proliferation of nuclear weapons to non-state actors as people predicted might happen when the Soviet Union broke up. Because if you're a terrorist group with a nuclear weapon, why would you not use it as soon as possible, given that it's a large, hard to obfuscate item which you're otherwise likely to use (and would represent the most incredible asset you're ever going to have).
It almost happened, multiple times, due to mistakes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls
I think before we get to the nuclear winter stage we'll experience the effects of a dirty bomb somewhere. This is much easier to do for an isolated (non state actor) group and has the same effect. Statistically this is overdue and only a question of time IMO.
That isn't a huge problem. I had my thyroid gland removed 30 years ago.
How? They give you a pill of radioactive iodine 131.
Nothing simple iodine pills won't solve. That's nothing even close to a nuclear weapon.
A dirty bomb is an act of terror and not much else. No, seriously. Likely builds aren't extremely dangerous, except to those constructing them. There's many ways that you could create these, including amassing fire alarms (there's issues with this).
So you make a pipe bomb with some nuclear material in it and there you go. You have cancer, and now your pipebomb sets off geiger counters. Added terror, but little added in terms of damage. The truth is that setting off a pipebomb in a NYC dumpster is going to cause relatively the same amount of terror as if that same pipebomb had radioactive material. Difference is your suitability and cost, so why do it?
We're not overdue. We've never seen one in use. We've only seen a handful constructed. It just doesn't make sense. Its added kill count is potentially +1 (you) and added terror is only slight. It is much cheaper and easier to just make a bunch of standard pipebombs and place them around a major city. But we aren't seeing that happen. Why? Because there just aren't that many terror attacks (sorry to those that supported the patriot act). [0]
So sorry, we aren't overdue. We haven't seen one because they are just a dumb idea that is expensive and difficult to execute.
[0] Between 9/11/01 and 10/15 there were 3066 Americans killed by terrorists. 2961 of those were on American soil. 2902 were on 9/11/01.
https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths...
"In the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, the department identified the requirement to 'modify a small number of submarine-launched ballistic missile warheads' to address the conclusion that potential adversaries, like Russia, believe that employment of low-yield nuclear weapons will give them an advantage over the United States and its allies and partners," Rood said.
"This supplemental capability strengthens deterrence and provides the United States a prompt, more survivable low-yield strategic weapon; supports our commitment to extended deterrence; and demonstrates to potential adversaries that there is no advantage to limited nuclear employment because the United States can credibly and decisively respond to any threat scenario," he said.
https://www.janes.com/article/94100/pentagon-confirms-deploy...
Wow, I was just about to argue that this is not about the Russians - but the DoD claims that it is. So the battle scenario is that Russia uses a small nuke on a US carrier group. What's the US response? You can't immediately escalate to full MAD, a proportionate response is needed, hence the small nuke.
It definitely does lower the threshold for use of nuclear weapons though. Personally I feel a better solution would have been renewed SALT talks and an agreement from nuclear states to not go down this path. More and a greater variety of nuclear weapons is bad.
It has been interesting to talk with pro Russian folks who seemed to think that a nuclear powered battlefield would somehow tip in their favor because their tanks were "nuclear radiation hardened".
I tried to explain that a nuclear exchange, small or not made no difference. Tanks are meaningless once nukes are introduced as they tip the scales so heavily in favor of "self preservation".
I would echo the other comments I've seen here that nuclear winter/collapse of civilization is vastly more likely as an end to civilization lately as arrogant, fatalist, cynical dictators and at times democratically elected presidents have gotten dreams of being written into the history pages. I'd say disappointing, but honestly it is more pathetic than anything else.
Because their tanks are made of plastic?
(I am being a little facetious, but if you know just a little about radiation shielding, a common neutron (what you'll see in a bomb) shield is polyethylene. They do make bullet proof vests out of this but I've never heard of a tank being made out of spectra)
The British and Australian governments tested this with Centurion tank #169041. They nuked it, then a few days later had a human crew jump in and drive it away. Most of the crew died of cancer years later.
I can't remember its composition but it was like a dark grey quilted blanket.
EDIT: Note: Not related to this article, but it is also insane to place nuclear weapons on typically conventional platforms such as a cruise missile, because then the recipient must now assume incoming conventional attacks could be nuclear as well.
Also, a low yield bomb is still a nuclear bomb!
EDIT 2: Note that it is also insane to use a high yield nuclear bomb, but we knew that already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
As a fun bonus, the range of the launcher wasn't that much longer than the lethal range of the warhead.