Will adopting smaller nukes facilitate likelihood of nuclear conflict?

[StringJunky]

What do you think?

Quote

Nuclear Posture Review: US wants smaller nukes to counter Russia

The US military has proposed diversifying its nuclear arsenal and developing new, smaller atomic bombs, largely to counter Russia.

The latest thinking was revealed in a Pentagon policy statement known as the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).

The US military is concerned Moscow sees US nuclear weapons as too big to be used - meaning they are no longer an effective deterrent.

Developing smaller nukes would challenge that assumption, it argues.

Low-yield weapons are smaller, less powerful bombs with a strength below 20 kilotons. Read more>> (BBC)

 

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What do you think?

 

I'd rather surgical strikes with nuclear bombs rather than total nuclear destruction with nuclear warheads.

That being said, I believe smaller nukes would remove some of the fear of using these destructive weapons.

So smaller ones might act as a catalyze of making it easier for fear of using nuclear weapons to correspond with the want to use them.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Raider5678

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'd rather surgical strikes with nuclear bombs rather than total nuclear destruction with nuclear warheads.

That being said, I believe smaller nukes would remove some of the fear of using these destructive weapons.

So smaller ones might act as a catalyze of making it easier for fear of using nuclear weapons to correspond with the want to use them.

 

 

The main function of nukes to date has been one of mutual fear where the endgame has always been seen as an Armeggedon scenario with no winners. Would this shift that idea to a winnable one, hence, possibly increasing the likelihood?

[iNow]

Yes

[Raider5678]

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The main function of nukes to date has been one of mutual fear where the endgame has always been seen as an Armeggedon scenario with no winners. Would this shift that idea to a winnable one, hence, possibly increasing the likelihood?

Potentially, however, I now suspect not.

My reasoning is as follows:

Premise 1: Two countries that enter a nuclear war using large-scale nuclear weapons results in Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD).

Premise 2: The threat of MAD currently deters countries from entering a nuclear war.

Premise 3: Two countries that enter a small-scale nuclear war will use their nuclear weapons on strategic enemy targets.

Premise 4: The destruction of all strategic positions in a country will be equated with assured destruction.

Premise 5: A country faced with assured destruction will then resort to guaranteeing assured destruction for the enemy through large-scale nuclear weapons.

Premise 6: Two countries attempting to guarantee assured destruction for the enemy will result in MAD.

Conclusion: Small-scale nuclear weapons will still lead to MAD should they be used between two nuclear capable countries assuming both countries have large-scale nuclear weapons.

 

I'm trying to use Premise/conclusion so my arguments are more organized. I'm not sure if it's helpful or not but there.

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Raider5678

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

What do you think?

 

It's an interesting question, currently the Soviets are bragging about some sort of super bomb that can take out huge areas (personally I think it's just posturing). Smaller bombs are actually more destructive per megaton than very large nukes. A MIRV with 9 one megaton warheads is far more destructive than one 9 megaton warhead.  I would hope that the fear of nuclear bombs extends far past their explosive potential. A small bomb still creates fallout and that is arguably more dangerous than the explosion alone.  

Something like a 4th generation nuclear bomb, a pure fusion bomb, possibly triggered by antimatter, would be far more dangerous due to it having very little fallout and it's use wouldn't be deterred by the fear of poisoning a large section of the biosphere and making everyone suffer for many years afterwards. Such weapons would be a wrench in the cogs of MAD and allow for hot heads to use them against far more targets with less blow back from the general population.  

Currently I think the major danger is for a small country to get froggy and detonate a bomb in low earth orbit over another country and take out it's electric and electronic infrastructure. such a strike would be devastating to a 1st world country.   

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Something like a 4th generation nuclear bomb, a pure fusion bomb, possibly triggered by antimatter,

 

The great filter approaches.

Get your ass moving Elon.

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Currently I think the major danger is for a small country to get froggy and detonate a bomb in low earth orbit over another country and take out it's electric and electronic infrastructure. such a strike would be devastating to a 1st world country.   

1

Actually, it wouldn't.

For one, lets assume they tried to bomb the United States.

They'd have to use several hundred nuclear bombs.......

Just to inconvenience a few people, and possibly kill extremely vulnerable people.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a25883/north-korea-cant-kill-ninety-percent-of-americans/

[Moontanman]

26 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The great filter approaches.

Get your ass moving Elon.

Actually, it wouldn't.

For one, lets assume they tried to bomb the United States.

They'd have to use several hundred nuclear bombs.......

Just to inconvenience a few people, and possibly kill extremely vulnerable people.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a25883/north-korea-cant-kill-ninety-percent-of-americans/

 

You missed my point, a small fusion or fission device detonated in low Earth orbit would destroy the electrical infrastructure of the US. Replacements are difficult to come by and not kept in large numbers to replace destroyed equipment. From transformers to entire electrical grids the destruction would be extensive and very slow to repair due to lack of replacement parts being since they are not stockpiled. Manufacturing replacement parts would be slow and slower still since the replacement parts need an intact electrical grid to be manufactured.  

I've seen estimates of more than a decade to restore electrical service to the electrical networks destroyed in this way. 

Everything would stop, a vast majority of cars, computers, phones, and nearly everything that is electronic would be rendered unusable. Hospitals, banks, heating and air conditioning, most of what we need to produce food, medicine, clean water, sanitation. All from one medium sized nuke detonated in low Earth orbit over the target. One such nuke could take out most of the US mainland... 

Even a counter strike could be hampered, if we struck back in the same way many small countries do not depend of electronics as much as we do and a counter strike would affect far more than just the country that attacked us. Fallout could kill millions of people in friendly countries and give enemy countries a reason to strike in in retribution for the poisoning of their lands.   

[Ten oz]

Assured mutual destruction is understood to be a deterrent. In the U.S. our nuclear deterrent is understood to have prevented war or at least kept us safe. Ironically when other countries seek the same deterrents the U.S. often views it as an act of aggression.  It is a contradiction. At the same time our (USA) govt actively works around the war through sanctions and threats of preemptive military strikes to prevent other nations from having nuclear weapons we continue to develop more. That "do as we say and not as we do" behavior creates a lot of tension around the world. In lie of the weapons the U.S. already posses and the fact the U.S. is actively in talks with nations like Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear programs I think creating new nuclear devices is a bad idea that send a contradictory message to world.  

[Carrock]

I doubt anyone honestly believes realistically threatening to use low yield nuclear weapons will encourage anyone, such as North Korea, to respond with low yield rather than high yield nuclear weapons.

As far as I know, there is no definite limit to the yield of a hydrogen bomb.

If a nuclear capable power is, say, being destroyed by multiple 5 kilotonne atom bombs, it may decide that using their (untested) five gigatonne or even one teratonne hydrogen bombs on the enemy is their best chance of survival.

[Ten oz]

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s new nuclear strategy calls for smaller weapons designed to deter North Korea, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Wednesday.

Mattis told reporters at the White House that the weapon would be used to deter one nation in particular, clearly suggesting North Korea, which has threatened to use its nuclear arsenal against the United States.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/07/new-nuclear-weapon-would-deter-north-korea-defense-secretary-mattis-says/316207002/

Dead is dead. Can't kill some one double, triple quadruple, or whatever. I do not accept the logic behind insisting that new smaller nuclear weapons will be a greater deterrent. Also the govt previously used Russia as a reason for the new weapons. I fear they're just using whatever justification feels timely. The end goal is to have a smaller more portable nuclear weapon which can be used in more contained areas with less global outcry. Problem with that is it opens the door for others to do the same. Small nuclear devices blowing up caves in Iraq and Syria may seem like a good strategic thing to do until ever mountain in the region is radioactive and children are born with terrible birth defects.  The U.S. absolutely should not tread into areas we (U.S.) would decry other for. 

[Carrock]

There is another issue.

The new "smaller" nuclear weapons could be adjustable yield weapons set for low yield.

Any of these "smaller" weapons could be converted in a matter of minutes (more likely seconds) into high yield weapons.

It would be possible to say truthfully that as old weapons are decommissioned the U.S.'s firepower is decreasing, while maintaining the possibility of an enormous increase in fire power at any time.

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, Carrock said:

There is another issue.

The new "smaller" nuclear weapons could be adjustable yield weapons set for low yield.

Any of these "smaller" weapons could be converted in a matter of minutes (more likely seconds) into high yield weapons.

It would be possible to say truthfully that as old weapons are decommissioned the U.S.'s firepower is decreasing, while maintaining the possibility of an enormous increase in fire power at any time.

The Nuclear weapons we (USA) currently have are virtually unusable in that the entire world would turn against the U.S., or any nation, if used. Our current nuclear weapons are a tool of absolute last resort; mutual destruction. The push for these news weapons seems to be an attempt to create something to use commonly as other weapons. The idea of that is a Pandora's box. 

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The push for these news weapons seems to be an attempt to create something to use commonly as other weapons. 

 

Indeed, there's no other legitimate reason to develop a less powerful ordinance. 

It's like meeting a moral objection to a bullet that can pass through a body and unintentionally kill others, by making a bullet that can't and only kills who its aimed at.

[Airbrush]

The smaller a nuke is the more likely it would be used.

Biggest threat would be a nuke to be smuggled into a country by a terrorist group.   Then they extort the country they attacked by threatening another attack.  You cannot figure out where the enemy is located.

ICBMs can be detected and radar shows you who is attacking you.  A loose nuke can pop up anywhere.

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

The smaller a nuke is the more likely it would be used.

Biggest threat would be a nuke to be smuggled into a country by a terrorist group.   Then they extort the country they attacked by threatening another attack.  You cannot figure out where the enemy is located.

ICBMs can be detected and radar shows you who is attacking you.  A loose nuke can pop up anywhere.

The actual delivery vehicle dimensions will remain the same, as will the physics package inside which is the bomb itself. By 'smaller', they mean in terms of  explosive yield... the area of destruction will be less. They can dial in different yields with the same physics package within limits. I think the current lower limit is about 3000 Tonnes of TNT equivalent, up to 400 000 Tonnes TNT.

Edited February 8, 2018 by StringJunky

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

The smaller a nuke is the more likely it would be used.

Biggest threat would be a nuke to be smuggled into a country by a terrorist group.   Then they extort the country they attacked by threatening another attack.  You cannot figure out where the enemy is located.

ICBMs can be detected and radar shows you who is attacking you.  A loose nuke can pop up anywhere.

Yes.

 

Smaller nukes would inevitably lead to many more nukes.

More nukes mean security will be spread thinner, and there are more opportunities to steal one.

[MigL]

Since the 1970s, F-111s of the USAF could carry the AGM-69  SRAM tactical nuclear missile.
A small  'theater' , battlefield nuke, with a 50 mi range.

Small, of course is a relative term with nukes, and the warhead yield was about 15 kt ( fission ) and 200 kt ( fusion ).

Edited February 11, 2018 by MigL

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Since the 1970s, F-111s of the USAF could carry the AGM-69  SRAM tactical nuclear missile.
A small  'theater' , battlefield nuke, with a 50 mi range.

Small, of course is a relative term with nukes, and the warhead yield was about 15 kt ( fission ) and 200 kt ( fusion ).

They can make them down to 10T TNT. Here's a video of a W54, with a 10-1000KT  yield, going off at 18T:

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by StringJunky