
U.S. deploys 'more survivable' submarine-launched low-yield nuclear weapon - avonmach
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-pentagon/us-deploys-more-survivable-submarine-launched-low-yield-nuclear-weapon-idUSKBN1ZY2EQ
======
nostrademons
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.

~~~
catalogia
> _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?

~~~
nostrademons
Find the training camp that assembled and delivered the nuke and nuke that (or
drone it, if you have the logistics for that, but the point of nuclear
deterrence is to assure that if you use nukes you die).

The point of having low-yield nukes is so you can do precision targeting. A
20mt nuke that blows up a whole city cannot be used if there's a danger that
fallout might fall on friendly or neutral territory. A 5kt nuke that blows up
a roughly 150m radius and causes negligible fallout could be used on a small
training camp, or even a warehouse in a lightly-populated suburban area,
without causing massive diplomatic problems.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
Use of nukes is punished with annihilation. That's the unwritten rule. Since
it's unwritten, a lot of the fine print is unwritten too, like _how soon_ and
_by what mechanism_. Maybe, if you nuke your 150m radius it sets in motion a
chain of events that _five years later_ culminates in nuclear war. You have no
way to know whether you would be opening the door to that. Since the loss is
effectively infinite and the probability is finite, the expected value of this
action is infinite and negative.

People want certainty when it comes to nuclear weapons. The only way to get
that is not to use them.

~~~
cloakandswagger
It makes no sense why use of a small-scale nuclear weapon would somehow
escalate to armageddon. It seems to hinge on the assumption that government
leaders are completely irrational robots that, once a nuclear weapon of a size
equivalent to a conventional bomb is used, take that as license to use nuclear
weapons of any size.

It's much more likely the "unwritten rule" you speak of would just shift,
where nuclear weapons of a certain payload (probably equivalent to
conventional weapons) would be acceptable for use. Government leaders, being
acutely aware of MAD, would clearly communicate the new accepted boundaries
and proceed from there.

------
keanzu
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-
deploy...](https://www.janes.com/article/94100/pentagon-confirms-deployment-
of-w76-2-low-yield-submarine-launched-ballistic-missile)

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.

------
altcognito
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.

~~~
godelski
> 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
It probably just means the tanks had air filters, maybe a positive pressure
atmosphere.

~~~
godelski
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
> _Though steel will probably become more radioactive as neutrons bombard it._

The British and Australian governments tested this with Centurion tank
#169041. They nuked it, then a few days later had a human crew jump in and
drive it away. Most of the crew died of cancer years later.

------
HenryKissinger
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.

------
tehjoker
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
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.

------
khrbrt
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?

------
oblib
I'm still not feeling the warm fuzzies.

~~~
thrill
Stand closer?

~~~
elipsey
i know you're gonna get downvoted, but fwiw i lol'd.

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

