
The Senseless Danger of the Military’s New “Low-Yield” Nuclear Warhead - smacktoward
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/low-yield-warhead-nuclear-weapons-navy-trident-submarines.html
======
lebrad
The US has possessed low-yield nukes for a long time

~~~
vermilingua
[citation needed]

~~~
nate_meurer
It would take you five seconds to google "low yield nuclear weapon US". Or,
you know, read the fucking article, which contains this gem:

> _the U.S. already has about 1,000 low-yield nuclear bombs and cruise
> missiles_

------
credit_guy
Not necessarily senseless. If a low-yield nuke is bad because it reduces the
threshold to nuclear war, then the article itself mentions that America
already has about 1000 such nukes. Adding a few more will not fundamentally
change the picture in any way.

Then why create these new nukes? There's obviously an official explanation,
which you can read here [1]:

"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. 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."

But why are the new nukes necessary if the US already has 1000 low-yield
nukes? The prior low-yields available were 0.3, 1.5, 5 and 10 kT TNT [2]. It
appears that the new nuke, W76-2 has a yield that fits in the gap between 5
and 10kt (the exact yield is classified). More importantly though, the
existing low-yield warheads are either gravity bombs (B61) or air-launched
cruise missiles (AGM-86B). Launching them is a headache. Shifting these nukes
from one military base to another is a headache. Just making the preparations
necessary to launch these nukes will escalate tensions. Having W76-2 available
24/7 on nuclear submarines can change the situation. And finally, as the DoD
states, the Trident-based nukes are more survivable.

The nightmare scenario that keeps US military planners up at night is a fait-
accompli Russian invasion of the Baltic republics. How do you stop a few
thousand tanks advancing towards Riga, when your closest mechanized forces are
in Poland and the way to Riga goes through the Suwalki gap [3] that the
Russians can easily interdict? An easy solution is to invoke Nato's Article 5,
and then drop a nuke on the territory of a Nato member (Estonia). It's not
nuking Russia. It's nuking one's own territory in a defensive position. That's
a scenario Russia will keep in mind.

[1]
[https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/20...](https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2073532/statement-
on-the-fielding-of-the-w76-2-low-yield-submarine-launched-ballistic-m/)

[2] [https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgronlund/us-already-has-low-
yi...](https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgronlund/us-already-has-low-yield-
nuclear-warheads)

[3] [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/suwalki-
gap-40-mile-l...](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/suwalki-gap-40-mile-
line-nato-ready-go-war-russia-over-52172)

~~~
anticodon
Just two points: 1) why would Russia invade bankrupt and dying Baltic states?
There's no economical or geostrategic point in this 2) Just proves the point
that all USA "allies" are just an expandable cannon fodder to experiment with
attacking Russia. It's too dangerous for US to attack Russia directly, so
they're planning to grab the heat using hands of Poland or Estonia. Russia
will nuke Estonia - fine as long as it's not Washington.

~~~
credit_guy
> bankrupt and dying Baltic states

Here's a graph of the gdp/capita for the Baltic states [1] and Russia [2]. I
did the math for you: Estonia experienced a compounded growth rate of
6.2%/year, while Russia one of 4.2%/year.

As for your second point, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. It's too
dangerous for the US to attack Russia? Why would the US want to attack Russia?
What is the indication that the US would have that in mind?

Conversely, to your question why Russia would invade the Baltic states, may I
remind you that not that long ago Russia invaded Crimea? Despite signing the
Budapest Memorandum that offered security assurances to Ukraine in exchange
for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons [3]. The US signed the same
memorandum, and watched powerlessly how Russia invades the sovereign territory
of Ukraine and can't do anything to honor its end of the deal.

Well, what's the big fuss over this, you might say? Ukraine is not a NATO
member, the US guarantee was somewhat metaphorical. But the Baltic states are
NATO members. If Russia manages to deliver the same fait accompli as it did in
Crimea, the US prestige is mortally wounded. NATO might as well cease to exist
there and then. What's the geostrategic point in this? It's simple: there is
no bigger strategic objective for Russia today than to make NATO irrelevant.

[1]
[https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=estonia...](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=estonia+gdp+per+capita)

[2]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=russia+gdp+per+capita](https://www.google.com/search?q=russia+gdp+per+capita)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances)

~~~
anticodon
Baltic states had all their industry destroyed. I don't know about GDP growth,
I just know that life there is harsher than in Russia and there's no potential
for improvement: Europe and US do not need another potential competitor, and
due to their hatred for Russia they broke all the ties to Russia. So they're
like a suitcase without a handle: seem too valuable to throw it out but too
inconvenient to continue carrying it. Like Ukraine which EU or US certainly
doesn't want to feed but they're unable to provide for themselves.

The sure sign of this is that significant portion of their population
emigrated to richer European countries, and the remaining population does not
reproduce (I assume because there's not enough sustenance to raise kids or no
hope for kids to have better future).

Crimea wasn't invaded and Crimea has largely Russian population. It's not a
hostile racist nation that Russia would have to feed and always expect to stab
in the back. Russian people live in Crimea and they're happy to become part of
Russia again (source: I have coworkers and friends from Crimea).

Besides Crimea has a valuable geographic position.

