6 ms·

U.S. deploys 'more survivable' submarine-launched low-yield nuclear weapon

51 points by avonmach 7y ago

oblib 7y ago
I'm still not feeling the warm fuzzies.
- thrill 7y ago
  Stand closer?
  - elipsey 7y ago
    i know you're gonna get downvoted, but fwiw i lol'd.
    - Wooo0pdaddy 7y ago
      because this site is full of stuck-up idiots LOL
nostrademons 7y ago
This seems inevitable in the evolving post-Cold-War geopolitical environment. MAD only works when there is a nation-state whose cities you could conceivably target. When the threat model is a larger number of non-state terrorist organizations that do not have well-defined borders, permanent populations, or even stationary bases, having a 450kt warhead targeting a city is basically useless. Imagine that say a Chechnyan separatist group detonated a nuclear warhead on U.S. soil. What would the response be? Nuke Moscow? "Yes, please, we never liked them anyway." 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.
- dlwdlw 7y ago
  I like this argument. At a less lethal level it works for guns as well. WW2 taught that you can’t drive countries to the point of having nothing to lose. A potentially positive spin is that we advancing to societies that prevent this from happening to individuals. Though the cost...
  - idoh 7y ago
    I have read this comment several times but have no idea what you are talking about, but it sounds interesting. Can you elaborate a bit here?
    - ptsneves 7y ago
      I think the comment is about the parallel between a post Versailles humiliated Germany leading to Hitler.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      The first sentence is comparing to the vast array of "less" lethal weapons modern police are equipped with with and how they seem to be more willing to use them in situations where they wouldn't be willing to shoot someone.
- catalogia 7y ago
  > Imagine that say a Chechnyan separatist group detonated a nuclear warhead on U.S. soil. 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?
  - 7y ago
HenryKissinger 7y ago
Henry Kissinger's work "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy" (1957) deals with issue. Herman Kann's Thermonuclear War is another seminal, and better known, work on the obscure issue of nuclear strategy.
altcognito 7y ago
This is the "counter" to Russia's addition of similar missiles with the implicit threat to Europe. 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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- godelski 7y ago
  > their tanks were "nuclear radiation hardened". 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)
  - catalogia 7y ago
    It probably just means the tanks had air filters, maybe a positive pressure atmosphere.
    - godelski 7y ago
      I assume that's what they actually mean, but it is less funny. Though steel will probably become more radioactive as neutrons bombard it. But that's better than breathing in radioactive dust.
      - catalogia 7y ago
tehjoker 7y ago
It is insane to use low-yield nuclear weapons because as they are incoming, the recipient has no choice but to assume the worst and potentially retaliate accordingly. 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.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  How about on a man-portable rocket launcher? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) 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.
keanzu 7y ago
The US Navy (USN) has fielded the W76-2 low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) warhead, John Rood, US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy said on 4 February in a statement. "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-deployment-of-w76-2-low-yield-submarine-launched-ballistic-missile 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.
mmhsieh 7y ago
nuclear weapons are the greatest self-inflicted curse on humanity.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
khrbrt 7y ago
Nuclear weapons made military sense in the days when hundreds of bombers would fly to hit a specific factory or base and have a slightly better than even chance of doing real damage to the objective. Is there still a need for this weapon when we can launch cruise missiles with meters of accuracy?

51 points by avonmach 7y ago

oblib 7y ago

I'm still not feeling the warm fuzzies.

thrill 7y ago
Stand closer?
- elipsey 7y ago
  i know you're gonna get downvoted, but fwiw i lol'd.
  - Wooo0pdaddy 7y ago
    because this site is full of stuck-up idiots LOL

nostrademons 7y ago

This seems inevitable in the evolving post-Cold-War geopolitical environment. MAD only works when there is a nation-state whose cities you could conceivably target. When the threat model is a larger number of non-state terrorist organizations that do not have well-defined borders, permanent populations, or even stationary bases, having a 450kt warhead targeting a city is basically useless. Imagine that say a Chechnyan separatist group detonated a nuclear warhead on U.S. soil. What would the response be? Nuke Moscow? "Yes, please, we never liked them anyway." 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.

dlwdlw 7y ago
I like this argument. At a less lethal level it works for guns as well. WW2 taught that you can’t drive countries to the point of having nothing to lose. A potentially positive spin is that we advancing to societies that prevent this from happening to individuals. Though the cost...
- idoh 7y ago
  I have read this comment several times but have no idea what you are talking about, but it sounds interesting. Can you elaborate a bit here?
  - ptsneves 7y ago
    I think the comment is about the parallel between a post Versailles humiliated Germany leading to Hitler.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    The first sentence is comparing to the vast array of "less" lethal weapons modern police are equipped with with and how they seem to be more willing to use them in situations where they wouldn't be willing to shoot someone.
catalogia 7y ago
> Imagine that say a Chechnyan separatist group detonated a nuclear warhead on U.S. soil. 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?
- 7y ago

HenryKissinger 7y ago

Henry Kissinger's work "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy" (1957) deals with issue. Herman Kann's Thermonuclear War is another seminal, and better known, work on the obscure issue of nuclear strategy.

altcognito 7y ago

This is the "counter" to Russia's addition of similar missiles with the implicit threat to Europe. 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.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
godelski 7y ago
> their tanks were "nuclear radiation hardened". 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)
- catalogia 7y ago
  It probably just means the tanks had air filters, maybe a positive pressure atmosphere.
  - godelski 7y ago
    I assume that's what they actually mean, but it is less funny. Though steel will probably become more radioactive as neutrons bombard it. But that's better than breathing in radioactive dust.
    - catalogia 7y ago

tehjoker 7y ago

It is insane to use low-yield nuclear weapons because as they are incoming, the recipient has no choice but to assume the worst and potentially retaliate accordingly. 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.

ceejayoz 7y ago
How about on a man-portable rocket launcher? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) 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.

keanzu 7y ago

The US Navy (USN) has fielded the W76-2 low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) warhead, John Rood, US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy said on 4 February in a statement. "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-deployment-of-w76-2-low-yield-submarine-launched-ballistic-missile 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.

mmhsieh 7y ago

nuclear weapons are the greatest self-inflicted curse on humanity.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

khrbrt 7y ago

Nuclear weapons made military sense in the days when hundreds of bombers would fly to hit a specific factory or base and have a slightly better than even chance of doing real damage to the objective. Is there still a need for this weapon when we can launch cruise missiles with meters of accuracy?