Are we making nuclear war more likely?

[StringJunky]

Quote

Russia says U.S. lowering 'nuclear threshold' with newer bombs in Europe

LONDON, Oct 29 (Reuters) - Russia said on Saturday that the accelerated deployment of modernised U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons at NATO bases in Europe would lower the "nuclear threshold" and that Russia would take the move into account in its military planning.

Russia has about 2,000 working tactical nuclear weapons while the United States has around 200 such weapons, half of which are at bases in Italy, Germany, Turkey, Belgium and the Netherlands.

The 12-ft B61-12 gravity bomb carries a lower yield nuclear warhead than many earlier versions but is more accurate and can penetrate below ground, according to research by the Federation of American Scientists published in 2014.

"The United States is modernizing them, increasing their accuracy and reducing the power of the nuclear charge, that is, they turn these weapons into 'battlefield weapons', thereby reducing the nuclear threshold," Grushko said. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-us-lowers-nuclear-threshold-by-deploying-new-nuclear-bombs-europe-2022-10-29/

Is steadily lowering their yield making them more likely to be used? Is there a case for specifying a minimum yield in a treaty between adversaries?

Edited October 30, 2022 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Is steadily lowering their yield making them more likely to be used?

One day their yield is less than we can eat/digest...

[TheVat]

There is still some radioactive fallout from a small tac nuke, and therefore lingering radiation in the area for years afterward, so one hopes that awareness would make any nuke an unpalatable option. I would guess that any detonation would be the equivalent of a serious reactor accident with all the costs and wasted land that goes with one.  With a conventional high powered explosive shell or missile, you can fill in the crater and plant a crop or put up apartments or reconnect a highway the following year.  

Also, more smaller devices means more to keep track of as they sit around for years and more chances for one to go missing.  

Really, for most types of attack I don't see the advantage in using a more expensive bomb (plutonium and the machining of critical mass components ain't cheap) when a conventional one, or maybe a well-aimed barrage of a dozen, would do.  And if your country wants that spot of land afterwards you'd be really glad you didn't nuke it.  Guess I'm missing something here.

[StringJunky]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

There is still some radioactive fallout from a small tac nuke, and therefore lingering radiation in the area for years afterward, so one hopes that awareness would make any nuke an unpalatable option. I would guess that any detonation would be the equivalent of a serious reactor accident with all the costs and wasted land that goes with one.  With a conventional high powered explosive shell or missile, you can fill in the crater and plant a crop or put up apartments or reconnect a highway the following year.  

Also, more smaller devices means more to keep track of as they sit around for years and more chances for one to go missing.  

Really, for most types of attack I don't see the advantage in using a more expensive bomb (plutonium and the machining of critical mass components ain't cheap) when a conventional one, or maybe a well-aimed barrage of a dozen, would do.  And if your country wants that spot of land afterwards you'd be really glad you didn't nuke it.  Guess I'm missing something here.

What we are seeing looks like brinkmanship on the part of the Russians, I think.

Edited October 30, 2022 by StringJunky