U.S. Use of Nuclear Weapons Now More "Thinkable"

[bradly1101]

Quietly the Obama administration's Pentagon is developing smaller yield and more accurate nuclear bombs. Is this a good idea, or are we being hypocritical to our supposed allegiance to non-proliferation?

A new investigative report on Monday sheds light on the United States' modernization of its nuclear arsenal and the details are troubling: weapons that are smaller, more accurate, and potentially more likely to be used—and a president who, critics say, has turned his back on hope for a global weapons ban.

Under President Obama, the Energy Department and the Pentagon have been modernizing existing weapons to produce "a smaller, more reliable arsenal," write New York Times reporters William Broad and David Sanger, which allows Obama to claim allegiance to his 2010 pledge to end the development of new U.S. nuclear warheads or capabilities.

One such model, the B61 Model 12, "is the first of five new warhead types planned as part of an atomic revitalization estimated to cost up to $1 trillion over three decades," the Times reports. "As a family, the weapons and their delivery systems move toward the small, the stealthy and the precise."

Last year the bomb was flight-tested by the U.S. government in the Nevada desert. At the time, Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov slammed the tests as "irresponsible" and "openly provocative."

Though he backed the upgrades, Gen. James E. Cartwright, one of the president's most influential nuclear strategists and former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged to the reporters that "what going smaller does...is to make the weapon more thinkable."

Edit: oops forgot to link main article:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/01/12/does-obamas-nuclear-modernization-make-unthinkable-thinkable

 

[IronWing]

With no current domestic enrichment or reprocessing capacity, the US currently has no choice but to go with smaller or fewer weapons. Warheads have a decay shelf life and have to be re-manufactured periodically, recycling the old warheads into new. Downsizing is one way to do this w/o the need for new fissile material.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Quietly the Obama administration's Pentagon is developing smaller yield and more accurate nuclear bombs. Is this a good idea, or are we being hypocritical to our supposed allegiance to non-proliferation?

The second quote seems to be an oblique reference to the title of Herman Kahn's book. "Thinking about the Unthinkable."

In a way, the initiative (if it can be called that) is consistent with all other weapons development. Increase pinpoint accuracy while reducing collateral damage (Although it's hard to think of reduced collateral damage with any nuke. It's only "more thinkable.")

Putting it on the drawing board is one thing.

But smaller nukes offer a greater risk for being stolen or smuggled.

I also wonder if this is a good idea from the standpoint of progress over many decades with the Russians.

On the other hand . . . . suppose DPRK actually launched a nuke at Japan, S. Korea or some other target. Suppose it was intercepted. One would have then a prerogative to strike back in parity. If that were the case, pinpoint accuracy and lower yield might be a good thing. It might seem more palatable to the Chinese.

I would rather hope that the "drawing-board" efforts are more propaganda directed to that fat little psychopath in Pyongyang. Who knows?

Better for China to eventually put a quick end to the DPRK criminals. Nukes or no nukes.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

With no current domestic enrichment or reprocessing capacity, the US currently has no choice but to go with smaller or fewer weapons. Warheads have a decay shelf life and have to be re-manufactured periodically, recycling the old warheads into new. Downsizing is one way to do this w/o the need for new fissile material.

Wow a good knowledge bomb has been dropped.
Seriously that is a smart observation.

 

[bradly1101]

With no current domestic enrichment or reprocessing capacity, ...

Really?

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/enrichment.html

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-enrichment.html

 

[MongGrel]

We have always been capable of tactical nukes, just many of them were phased out and decommissioned. Like the cruise missile warheads.

Even artillery shells, long ago.

It's something the US has had the capability to produce for decades now.

There are still plenty of Trident and MMIII's hanging about in place.

 

[IronWing]

Really?

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/enrichment.html

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-enrichment.html

Paducah was the last operating gaseous diffusion plant in the US. It is currently shutdown. The new centrifuge plant is not online yet. We have no enrichment capacity.

Reprocessing shut down under Bush I. Restarting would require a complete rebuild of capacity, very very expensive and time consuming.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

We have always been capable of tactical nukes, just many of them were phased out and decommissioned.

Even artillery shells, long ago.

It's something the US has had the capability to produce for decades now.

Maybe -- and many thanks to others who provided insight to this.

But if you can put a computer into an I-phone, could you possibly make a nuke smaller than a barrel-box of Quaker Oats? Maybe the tactical nukes of bygone days were that small, to fit in the bore of a cannon.

 

[MongGrel]

Maybe -- and many thanks to others who provided insight to this.

But if you can put a computer into an I-phone, could you possibly make a nuke smaller than a barrel-box of Quaker Oats? Maybe the tactical nukes of bygone days were that small, to fit in the bore of a cannon.

Is kind of why you can put multiple MIRV's on one ballistic missile, ya know.

They kinda have more than one warhead at a pop on them.

A lot of them in the silos have a higher capability than is loaded on them atm actually, and have been reduced over time. Well, supposedly, at any rate. I haven't been in the silos to look I guess

 

[bradly1101]

The second quote seems to be an oblique reference to the title of Herman Kahn's book. "Thinking about the Unthinkable."

In a way, the initiative (if it can be called that) is consistent with all other weapons development. Increase pinpoint accuracy while reducing collateral damage (Although it's hard to think of reduced collateral damage with any nuke. It's only "more thinkable.")

Putting it on the drawing board is one thing.

But smaller nukes offer a greater risk for being stolen or smuggled.

I also wonder if this is a good idea from the standpoint of progress over many decades with the Russians.

On the other hand . . . . suppose DPRK actually launched a nuke at Japan, S. Korea or some other target. Suppose it was intercepted. One would have then a prerogative to strike back in parity. If that were the case, pinpoint accuracy and lower yield might be a good thing. It might seem more palatable to the Chinese.

I would rather hope that the "drawing-board" efforts are more propaganda directed to that fat little psychopath in Pyongyang. Who knows?

Better for China to eventually put a quick end to the DPRK criminals. Nukes or no nukes.

So no hypocrisy by branding North Korea's nuclear defensive fear-based actions as provocative while developing ones of our own? I thought we should "lead by example," or has that been totally thrown out the window since our own defensive nuclear strikes?

 

[Jhhnn]

With no current domestic enrichment or reprocessing capacity, the US currently has no choice but to go with smaller or fewer weapons. Warheads have a decay shelf life and have to be re-manufactured periodically, recycling the old warheads into new. Downsizing is one way to do this w/o the need for new fissile material.

Not exactly. The US has enormous stockpiles of Plutonium 239 from the decommissioned cold war arsenal. It has a half life of 24,000 years so it's basically fresh as a daisy. It decays into fissionable Uranium 235 which has a half life of 700M years.

I don't see how this makes nuclear weapons use more thinkable, certainly not from a Geo-political perspective. I think it makes the destructive potential less should a bunch of damned fools come to power & actually do it. It's another step away from the power to annihilate the world population & destroy civilization.

 

[MongGrel]

So no hypocrisy by branding North Korea's nuclear defensive fear-based actions as provocative while developing ones of our own? I thought we should "lead by example," or has that been totally thrown out the window since our own defensive nuclear strikes?

Every thing you are saying really makes little to no sense atm, to be honest.

Move to North Korea and see how ya like it there I guess.

The ones the US has were developed long ago, allowing mad dog "I want to kill everyone in site" countries to deploy them in masse will never be a good plan.

Kind of surprised India and Pakistan haven't popped a few off by now really. But I guess I'm not a large optimist about the world globally for awhile.

 

[MongGrel]

Not exactly. The US has enormous stockpiles of Plutonium 239 from the decommissioned cold war arsenal. It has a half life of 24,000 years so it's basically fresh as a daisy. It decays into fissionable Uranium 235 which has a half life of 700M years.

I don't see how this makes nuclear weapons use more thinkable, certainly not from a Geo-political perspective. I think it makes the destructive potential less should a bunch of damned fools come to power & actually do it. It's another step away from the power to annihilate the world population & destroy civilization.

Yep, there is no lack of usable spare material hanging around.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

So no hypocrisy by branding North Korea's nuclear defensive fear-based actions as provocative while developing ones of our own? I thought we should "lead by example," or has that been totally thrown out the window since our own defensive nuclear strikes?

We should lead by example, but avoid leaving ourselves defenseless.

The Chinese supposedly have some 80 nukes deployed. If that's true, they seem to be the only sane player among the superpowers.

If we adhered to the SALT and other treaties established, we'd only be replacing old nukes of limited shelf-life with new.

Replacing the stockpile is one thing; nuclear proliferation is another.

And at this point, it's a "plan." JCS has all sorts of "plans." They had a plan for a second invasion of Cuba. One notorious staffer had actually written a "plan" to blow up a US Navy vessel at Guantanamo as a provocation to enable the other "plan."

The DPRK regime is quixotically living in the Past, and that's why they've made up this story to justify their nukes -- a story which they've made themselves believe. It's easy for them to believe it themselves, no less that the story assists in controlling the civilian population. "We're threatened from all sides" enables nukes and national unity. But it's just a matter of time before (a) Little Kim miscalculates, or (b) Little Kim is dis-armed, de-feeted and de-throned.

If you ask me, our own "story" is as much subtle propaganda as it's just a "plan" so far.

 

[werepossum]

With no current domestic enrichment or reprocessing capacity, the US currently has no choice but to go with smaller or fewer weapons. Warheads have a decay shelf life and have to be re-manufactured periodically, recycling the old warheads into new. Downsizing is one way to do this w/o the need for new fissile material.

That's an excellent point.

The second quote seems to be an oblique reference to the title of Herman Kahn's book. "Thinking about the Unthinkable."

In a way, the initiative (if it can be called that) is consistent with all other weapons development. Increase pinpoint accuracy while reducing collateral damage (Although it's hard to think of reduced collateral damage with any nuke. It's only "more thinkable.")

Putting it on the drawing board is one thing.

But smaller nukes offer a greater risk for being stolen or smuggled.

I also wonder if this is a good idea from the standpoint of progress over many decades with the Russians.

On the other hand . . . . suppose DPRK actually launched a nuke at Japan, S. Korea or some other target. Suppose it was intercepted. One would have then a prerogative to strike back in parity. If that were the case, pinpoint accuracy and lower yield might be a good thing. It might seem more palatable to the Chinese.

I would rather hope that the "drawing-board" efforts are more propaganda directed to that fat little psychopath in Pyongyang. Who knows?

Better for China to eventually put a quick end to the DPRK criminals. Nukes or no nukes.

Spot on. It's also likely a better deterrent in some situations, such as directed blast nuclear bunker busters. If Kim Puffy Ill has his bunker/unicorn manger in the middle of Pyongyang and it's impervious to all known conventional bunker busters, he feels pretty safe doing whatever the hell he wants. If we have a nuclear bunker buster with limited fallout, short duration radiation, and a directed blast pattern, he might feel a wee bit less comfortable.

Of course, the down side is that maybe America starts to believe cleaner means clean.

 

[werepossum]

Maybe -- and many thanks to others who provided insight to this.

But if you can put a computer into an I-phone, could you possibly make a nuke smaller than a barrel-box of Quaker Oats? Maybe the tactical nukes of bygone days were that small, to fit in the bore of a cannon.

Yup. We had nuclear artillery shells down to 155mm. That's steel armor, charge, and dampening in a 5" diameter package.

 

[cbrunny]

smaller nuclear bomb.. isn't that just like a regular bomb? Seems wasteful.

 

[Darwin333]

Yup. We had nuclear artillery shells down to 155mm. That's steel armor, charge, and dampening in a 5" diameter package.

Nuclear torpedoes too.

 

[Darwin333]

smaller nuclear bomb.. isn't that just like a regular bomb? Seems wasteful.

No. A small nuke is still much much bigger than any conventional bomb.

 

[Hugo Drax]

With no current domestic enrichment or reprocessing capacity, the US currently has no choice but to go with smaller or fewer weapons. Warheads have a decay shelf life and have to be re-manufactured periodically, recycling the old warheads into new. Downsizing is one way to do this w/o the need for new fissile material.

Sad that we outsourced all that to foxconn in china.

 

[Hugo Drax]

smaller nuclear bomb.. isn't that just like a regular bomb? Seems wasteful.

No because a bomb thr size of a firecracker is less wasteful of fuel. Aircraft would consume significantly less fuel.

 

[Subyman]

I don't see how having smaller weapons means we are more likely to use them. Nukes will never be deployed unless there is a MAD scenario. The political ramifications are far too high. Like Ironwing said, this is a maintenance plan and nothing more.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I don't see how having smaller weapons means we are more likely to use them. Nukes will never be deployed unless there is a MAD scenario. The political ramifications are far too high. Like Ironwing said, this is a maintenance plan and nothing more.

In fact, any use of such a weapon would have symbolic implications much larger than the difference in size with conventional big-bang nuclear weapons.

That's probably the biggest argument against refreshing the stockpile. But if others have a limited number of nukes, we need to keep them in the arsenal. Otherwise -- no MAD.

 

[Subyman]

In fact, any use of such a weapon would have symbolic implications much larger than the difference in size with conventional big-bang nuclear weapons.

That's probably the biggest argument against refreshing the stockpile. But if others have a limited number of nukes, we need to keep them in the arsenal. Otherwise -- no MAD.

It certainly is a power play to have a nuclear arsenal. To be a super power you must have nuclear weapons. Plus we will need them when the asteroid comes

 

[kage69]

Nuclear torpedoes too.

..and nuclear depth charges. And mortars.


I can see the worry some have over this. Not because it somehow undermines our non-proliferation efforts (it doesn't), but because it changes the normal calculus when considering their use, for us and the people on the receiving end. Wide spread devastation and the lingering radioactive effects make traditional warheads tools that no one wants to use unless absolutely necessary. Now that we've restricted the after effects, commanders might be more apt to call upon them for strikes...which could lead to an exchange that quickly ramps up to what we fear: total nuclear war.

I can see where many foreign leaders might refuse to see a distinction between nuclear weapons based on a kiloton rating. Places like North Korea and Iran would probably be pretty quick to take that position in an attempt to deny the US wiggle room when addressing hardened subterranean plants and depots.

Given where we are with Iran and NK, it's not really a surprise they would develop these. Can't really put hyperbaric weapons to use on underground stuff, you need open space to achieve the right fuel to air ratio prior to detonation, so nuclear warheads are the only other thing strong enough to do the job. It's a natural progression of capability really, and personally I'm fine with North Korea, Russia, Iran and China being made aware that they aren't the only ones making strides in military tech (tech not based on intellectual theft and that can actually be funded in production and use).

Watching Russia absorb other countries, fund and supply terrorist networks, and stoke tensions that can lead to war, I can see why some people want these in our arsenal. Ditto for China and it's ego-driven, war hungry government that is trying to steal from Pacific neighbors.