Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line

[TU Curmudgeon]

From The South China Morning Post

Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line
​

The US has begun making new, low-yield nuclear warheads for its Trident missiles that arms control advocates warn could lower the threshold for a nuclear conflict.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced in an email it had started manufacturing the weapon at its Pantex nuclear weapons plant in Texas, as ordered by Donald Trump’s nuclear posture review (NPR) last year.

The NNSA said the first of the new warheads had come off the production line and it was on schedule to deliver the first batch before the end of September.

The new weapon, the W76-2, is a modification of the existing Trident warhead.

COMMENT:-

Oh GOODY!!!
​

 

[Harshaw]

From The South China Morning Post

Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line
​

The US has begun making new, low-yield nuclear warheads for its Trident missiles that arms control advocates warn could lower the threshold for a nuclear conflict.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced in an email it had started manufacturing the weapon at its Pantex nuclear weapons plant in Texas, as ordered by Donald Trump’s nuclear posture review (NPR) last year.

The NNSA said the first of the new warheads had come off the production line and it was on schedule to deliver the first batch before the end of September.

The new weapon, the W76-2, is a modification of the existing Trident warhead.

COMMENT:-

Oh GOODY!!!
​

As if we would launch a nuke just because it's a little smaller.

 

[Lutherf]

The problem with delivering a low yield nuke if your adversary doesn't have one is that they will end up retaliating with what they do have and that will be a nominal yield munition. That being said, such a device in a "bunker buster" configuration could be handy in certain situations.

 

[roughdraft274]

The problem with delivering a low yield nuke if your adversary doesn't have one is that they will end up retaliating with what they do have and that will be a nominal yield munition. That being said, such a device in a "bunker buster" configuration could be handy in certain situations.

Agreed, but this is very much like the larger yield nukes. It's 99% for deterrence. Maybe, just maybe some country that's getting smart and trying to figure out just how much they can **** around and thinking to themselves "well, they'd never just nuke the whole country to bits" now has to consider the scenario that maybe we could nuke only the industrial portion or only very large military installations, which they might actually think we would do. They are incredibly unlikely, just as any scenario is where we are dropping nukes, but I could imagine these making a decision just slightly easier if we could cut the death toll in half or even much better.

 

[RobertU]

From The South China Morning Post

Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line
​

The US has begun making new, low-yield nuclear warheads for its Trident missiles that arms control advocates warn could lower the threshold for a nuclear conflict.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced in an email it had started manufacturing the weapon at its Pantex nuclear weapons plant in Texas, as ordered by Donald Trump’s nuclear posture review (NPR) last year.

The NNSA said the first of the new warheads had come off the production line and it was on schedule to deliver the first batch before the end of September.

The new weapon, the W76-2, is a modification of the existing Trident warhead.

COMMENT:-

Oh GOODY!!!
​

Maybe Trump got confused when someone said we should continue to fund NPR (National Public Radio).

 

[Rogue Valley]

Russia has had nuclear-capable small-yield cruise missiles (Novator) in service since 2008.

Their range violates the INF Treaty.

 

[sanman]

Aren't all nukes covered under existing no-first-use treaties, regardless of yield/size?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

As if we would launch a nuke just because it's a little smaller.

A 95% reduction is size doesn't really qualify as "a little smaller" does it?

Of course, if you hadn't read the article, you probably didn't quite grasp what a reduction was being made, so that excuses your (whatever) - doesn't it?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Russia has had nuclear-capable small-yield cruise missiles (Novator) in service since 2008.

Their range violates the INF Treaty.

That, indeed, is the position of the US government which hasn't actually examined any of the missiles - despite being invited to do so by the Russians.

Is the US government correct? How can anyone know without any examination of the missiles?

On the other hand, it's always possible that Mr. Trump is actually using IMPDMU inches to calculate how far the missiles will go and not converting them to either their metric or imperial equivalents correctly.

What's an IMPDMU?

Spoiler

An IMPDMU is an "International Male Penis Description Measuring Unit" and it is generally acknowledged that

1 IMPDMU inch = 0.73 Imperial Inches
or, alternatively
1 IMPDMU inch = 1.8542 cm.​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Aren't all nukes covered under existing no-first-use treaties, regardless of yield/size?

They are, for most countries.

However,

The United States has refused to adopt a no-first-use policy, saying that it "reserves the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict. The U.S. doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons was revised most recently in the Nuclear Posture Review, released April 6, 2010.
[SOURCE]
​

Oh yes, there is one other minor problem with your statement, THERE ARE NO EXISTING "NO FIRST USE" TREATIES.

PS - Two countries have "pledged" themselves to a "No First Use Policy", can you name them?

 

[Harshaw]

A 95% reduction is size doesn't really qualify as "a little smaller" does it?

Not when the subject is nukes . . .

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not when the subject is nukes . . .

Well, that was the term that you used.

These nukes are a LOT smaller.

In fact they may well be "small enough to use".

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Re: Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line

The US has begun making new, low-yield nuclear warheads for its Trident missiles that arms control advocates warn could lower the threshold for a nuclear conflict.

We're doing more than just making smaller nukes. Our ICBMs are finally going to get 455 kiloton warheads (that will be light enough to serve as MIRVs on a Minuteman, should we ever choose to re-MIRV them).

Note:
"Sustain and modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile with five programs currently underway (W76-2 Modification Program, B61-12 Life Extension Program, W80-4 Life Extension Program, W88 Alteration 370, and W87-1 Modification Program)"

Budget | Department of Energy

 

[3leftsdoo]

Re: Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line

As long as these things are being made with parts/material from China, India, Pakistan, South Korea and so, on, what could go wrong?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Re: Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line

If these are neutron bombs, it is a game changer.

The problem with "conventional" nuclear tactical weapons is that they can only be used as defensive weapons. You drop a nuke in front of the advancing army, that army has to stop advancing in that direction.

An advancing army cannot use a conventional nuke on the enemy before them because it effectively does what the enemy wanted to do: Namely, stop the advance of the army. They cannot continue into the area they just nuked because of the lingering radiation. Neutron bombs yield high radiation levels for a relatively short period of time, effectively killing enemy soldiers but neither destroying everything of value with a blast or contaminating the area for long periods rendering the area uninhabitable for long periods post-detonation.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Re: Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line

Looks like a good reason for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Re: Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line

If these are neutron bombs, it is a game changer.

These will not be neutron bombs. They will effectively be boosted A-bombs. They are just taking a normal thermonuclear warhead and preventing the primary from touching off the secondary, leaving the primary alone to provide the explosive power.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Re: Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line

Looks like a good reason for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

How so? These weapons have little to do with non-nuclear powers.

At any rate, if Iran builds illegal nuclear weapons, the world will crush them with crippling sanctions much like they are doing with North Korea.

 

[Cardinal]

If we lower the threshold for when we can use a nuclear weapon against our foes, our foes will lower the threshold for when they can use nukes against us.

Making the use of nuclear weapons "palatable" in any way is catastrophic.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Re: Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line

How so? These weapons have little to do with non-nuclear powers.

At any rate, if Iran builds illegal nuclear weapons, the world will crush them with crippling sanctions much like they are doing with North Korea.

Did you know that it is NOT "illegal" for Iran to build nuclear weapons?

Iran did AGREE that it WOULD NOT build nuclear weapons provided that certain conditions were met. The countries that Iran considered significant AGREED to meet those conditions - and did (until Mr. Trump said that the US wasn't going to do what had been agreed to). Even after that point, the Iranians continued to comply with their agreement.

However, IF the other countries involved in the agreement decide that they are no longer going to do what they agreed they would do IF Iran stopped working on building nuclear weapons, THEN Iran is no longer bound by that agreement and is legally free to resume work on building nuclear weapons.

PS - Mr. Trump is attempting to get the world to crush Iran with crippling sanctions DESPITE the fact that Iran both has agreed not to work on building nuclear weapons and is not working on nuclear weapons. So what does Iran have to lose if it resumes work on building nuclear weapons?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

If we lower the threshold for when we can use a nuclear weapon against our foes, our foes will lower the threshold for when they can use nukes against us.
Making the use of nuclear weapons "palatable" in any way is catastrophic.

These nukes are being developed to counter the possibility that an enemy aggressor might try a limited nuclear attack that would give them a decisive advantage over our conventional forces, but at the same time not be enough (in their estimation) to provoke us into using a full-sized nuke against them.

That would probably be a miscalculation on their part. I'm sure that if our conventional forces were overwhelmed with nuclear weapons, we would not hesitate to respond with nuclear weapons.

However, it would be preferable to avoid such miscalculations in the first place. The idea of a smaller, more usable, nuke is to prevent our enemies from making this sort of miscalculation by making it clear that we have an easy way to respond to low-level nuclear attacks.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Re: Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line

Did you know that it is NOT "illegal" for Iran to build nuclear weapons?

The Non Proliferation Treaty says that it is.

Iran did AGREE that it WOULD NOT build nuclear weapons provided that certain conditions were met. The countries that Iran considered significant AGREED to meet those conditions - and did (until Mr. Trump said that the US wasn't going to do what had been agreed to). Even after that point, the Iranians continued to comply with their agreement.

However, IF the other countries involved in the agreement decide that they are no longer going to do what they agreed they would do IF Iran stopped working on building nuclear weapons, THEN Iran is no longer bound by that agreement and is legally free to resume work on building nuclear weapons.

Not legally free according to the Non Proliferation Treaty.

PS - Mr. Trump is attempting to get the world to crush Iran with crippling sanctions DESPITE the fact that Iran both has agreed not to work on building nuclear weapons and is not working on nuclear weapons. So what does Iran have to lose if it resumes work on building nuclear weapons?

The other governments of the world are not placing sanctions on Iran at the moment. In fact, many governments are trying to help Iran evade the sanctions that Trump is placing on them. But if Iran were to build illegal nuclear weapons, sanctions against them would be imposed by the entire world.

Look at North Korea. The situation that Iran faces right now is not comparable to the sanctions that the entire world has placed on North Korea.

 

[Cardinal]

These nukes are being developed to counter the possibility that an enemy aggressor might try a limited nuclear attack that would give them a decisive advantage over our conventional forces, but at the same time not be enough (in their estimation) to provoke us into using a full-sized nuke against them.

That would probably be a miscalculation on their part. I'm sure that if our conventional forces were overwhelmed with nuclear weapons, we would not hesitate to respond with nuclear weapons.

However, it would be preferable to avoid such miscalculations in the first place. The idea of a smaller, more usable, nuke is to prevent our enemies from making this sort of miscalculation by making it clear that we have an easy way to respond to low-level nuclear attacks.

What creates the deterrence for using nukes in the first place is the threat of mutually assured destruction, which is a power emotional incentive to not use nukes. If you remove that emotional incentive, you increase the likelihood that nukes will be used. The only thing restraining anybody from using nukes is pure, unadulterated horror. Remove the horror, remove the restraint. That's bad.

 

[danarhea]

Not when the subject is nukes . . .

I disagree here, and have to agree with Trump on this issue..... (Damn, what is wrong with me, second time this week I have defended Trump - LOL). Seriously, though, Russia already has them, and it will be a deterrence if we also have them. Russia won't use theirs because we would use ours. Pretty simple concept. It's MAD again, albeit on a smaller scale, which could lead to the bigger scale once the smaller ones are used. We must keep Russia in check on nuclear arms, and this is one way to do it.

NOTE: If Russia wants to negotiate on this, Reagan's motto works again. Trust but verify.

 

[Godric1970]

From The South China Morning Post

Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line
​

The US has begun making new, low-yield nuclear warheads for its Trident missiles that arms control advocates warn could lower the threshold for a nuclear conflict.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced in an email it had started manufacturing the weapon at its Pantex nuclear weapons plant in Texas, as ordered by Donald Trump’s nuclear posture review (NPR) last year.

The NNSA said the first of the new warheads had come off the production line and it was on schedule to deliver the first batch before the end of September.

The new weapon, the W76-2, is a modification of the existing Trident warhead.

COMMENT:-

Oh GOODY!!!
​

America or any other country uses a nuke of any kind will become a pariah state immediately