Mini-nukes on US agenda

[Whaleboy]

Oh please give me a break

Don't worry I was joshing. I think Canada is safe... for now

[sickntired]

Originally posted by elijah
Because it means nukes are more likely to be used

Hmm. The United States has assembled thousands of nuclear devices since WWII and not used a single one. What evidence prompts this statement?

[The diplomat]

I agree 100% with the administration's policy to pursue mini-nukes.

Mini-nukes will give the US a more diverse and effective deterrent in this post Cold War and post 9-11 era. Right now, all we really have a city busters which will be completely useless against a terror attack with WMDs. If a terrorist uses a radioactive bomb, we can't retaliate with a 20 Mt city buster. Who would we target since the terrorists are probably not linked to any nation or state? It would be a completely inappropriate response against that sort of attack. A mini-nuke however would be more appropriate in certain cases. It is very low yield, and low fallout. And it could target specific underground and deeply buried facilities where terrorists are mostly likely to hide, and that conventional weapons can't reach.

It is highly unlikely that we would ever use them. I certainly hope we never do. But we need the diverse deterrence.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by elijah


Don't worry I was joshing. I think Canada is safe... for now

Oh ok.

Personally I think the US would invade Mexico more likely then Canada.

[Dom Pedro II]

Why buy nukes from us when its so much easier to get them from the Russians?

But the really big problem (overall) with nuclear weapons isn't the action itself as tragic as it would be... its the reaction. The men who developed the Bojinka plan were thinking of one thing.... goading America into attacking.

We did that, but it wasn't all they could've hoped for... they were hoping for much bigger fireworks. That's why "Osama bin Laden" was trying to rally support behind Saddam Hussein (his ideaological enemy) because the whole idea behind 9/11 was to kick start a Holy War.

The dogs of war were, all in all, restrained after 9/11. Bush could've taken a VERY different approach. Such "civility" could not be guaranteed with nukes. Nukes cross a threshold that no one has yet dared to cross (against other people who had nukes). No one can say what the American reaction would be....

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by The diplomat
I agree 100% with the administration's policy to pursue mini-nukes.

Mini-nukes will give the US a more diverse and effective deterrent in this post Cold War and post 9-11 era. Right now, all we really have a city busters which will be completely useless against a terror attack with WMDs. If a terrorist uses a radioactive bomb, we can't retaliate with a 20 Mt city buster. Who would we target since the terrorists are probably not linked to any nation or state? It would be a completely inappropriate response against that sort of attack. A mini-nuke however would be more appropriate in certain cases. It is very low yield, and low fallout. And it could target specific underground and deeply buried facilities where terrorists are mostly likely to hide, and that conventional weapons can't reach.

It is highly unlikely that we would ever use them. I certainly hope we never do. But we need the diverse deterrence.

[Whaleboy]

Hmm. The United States has assembled thousands of nuclear devices since WWII and not used a single one. What evidence prompts this statement?

As I said previously, MAD. This means "Mutually Assured Destruction". This means that if America fired a nuke, USSR would fire back, and all would be dust. Its a sort of equilibrium, like an arm-wrestle where both sides can't get the decisive edge to prevent MAD.

Now, compare a rocket launcher to a beretta when you want to take out someone's kneecap. This is the key difference, smaller weapons are more tactically useful at completing tasks due to smaller yield, so more likely to be used. However of course many of the traditional problems of nukes remain, not least the threat of retaliation if a superpower is involved. Most likely in that case a small nuke would be used on a third world state, under the protection of someone like China etc. Its effectively in that case a back door to global annihilation.

Game theory is an economic idea, assuming all people are rational (no-one fires first without provocation), it shows that in a situation, like the cuban missile crisis for example, no-one would fire, and in the larger cold war, we would emerge without use of nukes.

Incidentally, MAD was the reason McArthurs desire for the use of nukes in the Korean war was rejected.

[Dom Pedro II]

Mini-nukes will give the US a more diverse and effective deterrent in this post Cold War and post 9-11 era. Right now, all we really have a city busters which will be completely useless against a terror attack with WMDs. If a terrorist uses a radioactive bomb, we can't retaliate with a 20 Mt city buster. Who would we target since the terrorists are probably not linked to any nation or state? It would be a completely inappropriate response against that sort of attack. A mini-nuke however would be more appropriate in certain cases. It is very low yield, and low fallout. And it could target specific underground and deeply buried facilities where terrorists are mostly likely to hide, and that conventional weapons can't reach.

I still think that its bad press... it doesn't really matter whether or not they do as much damage, they still conjure up images of radioactive death, and for people who are already sitting on the fence with us, that's exactly the sort of imagery we DON'T need. And how exactly are we going to tell such and such country "Oh, we're going to drop a nuke in your backyard if you don't mind..." That'll go over well, I'm sure.

Nevermind the fact of what if something goes wrong... if we know exactly where these bunkers are, we could get to them with enough persistence.... what we wouldn't want is the air force getting the Okay to use these things and then decide to go hunting and pecking for the bunkers.

[sickntired]

Originally posted by iamlod
it'll be that much easier for our enemies (or terrosists) to steal them

I would assume, perhaps mistakenly so, that security around a military facility housing nuclear weapons would be rather tight. Perhaps unparalleled. Could you describe a couple of the most blatant security breeches at these facilities? Perhaps this is a real concern?

Originally posted by iamlod
Can you imagine a nuclear suitcase bomb?

Yes, actually, as a matter of fact I can, considering the United States developed a 48 pound nuclear device called the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead in 1958. Does this come as a surprise 45 years later?

[Whaleboy]

A 1 kiloton blast is enough to be a city buster. The application of these devices, not to mention the fact that THEY ARE IMPOSSIBLE has not been thought out. IMO it would appear to be another attempt to appear strong armed to the voters. God im cynical (and right ).

If a terrorist uses a radioactive bomb, we can't retaliate with a 20 Mt city buster

You don't have any 20 megaton nukes. If a terrorist uses a radioactive bomb, you should arrest and try them for mass murder/genocide etc. Like I said, any useful tactical application simply does not exist, of if so, is not enough to logically justify this proposed weapon. It may make sense at first glace, but it doesn't work like that.

It is very low yield, and low fallout

Lowest possible yield would be in the area of 5 kilotons (Hiroshima was 15 tons, 1kiloton, while massive, is out of the question). This is a big yield, easily enough to destroy much of New York or inner London, wipe out my town of ~200'000 certainly (10% death rate easily here). The fallout would be comparable to Hiroshima, which was devastating in its own right.

It is highly unlikely that we would ever use them. I certainly hope we never do. But we need the diverse deterrence.

ITS NOT A DETERRENT!!! Its more useful in a tactical capacity, not to give the ****s to the enemy!

[Whaleboy]

48 pound

Some suitcase!! I read some stuff on that ages ago, the physics is flawed, the actual explosion was a few kilotons I dont recall exactly *checks*.

[Dom Pedro II]

Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent if your enemy has them too.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by elijah
As I said previously, MAD. This means "Mutually Assured Destruction". This means that if America fired a nuke, USSR would fire back, and all would be dust. Its a sort of equilibrium, like an arm-wrestle where both sides can't get the decisive edge to prevent MAD.

This is precisely why we need mini-nukes. The world has changed. We don't face an enemy of large cities and long range intercontinental missiles. Now, we face an enemy of small covert terror groups, extremelly difficult to detect, who can inflitrate in and out of any country, and who would not hesitate to slaughter thousands with WMD if possible with no regard for the consequences.

MAD only worked with the USSR because they too cared about their lives. MAD won't work against terrorists because they don't care about their own lives. Bin Laden and the likes, won't care one bit if they start a nuclear war.

Our current detterent of 20Mt intercontinental missiles are obsolete against this new threat. We need a new deterrence, something smaller that can threaten the terrorists even in the deepest underground hide-outs.

[Whaleboy]

I thought about this, if they are going to create an explosive reaction, they need nuke material at or above critical mass for a chain reaction.

Most nukes have no control over that, for maximum explosive force, however I figure if they use boron rods like in a normal reactor, they can control the reaction, reducing the yield for the same mass of uranium/plutonium. In that sense, you could probably get a yield of a few dozen tons of TNT.

That is still devastating of course, but greater usability and making it even more likely to be used. Fallout will become more acute, localised and concentrated, and if some gets into atmosphere, you have a problem - even more so if more of these things are used. We're deep in the **** if these things are created!

[Whaleboy]

This is precisely why we need mini-nukes. The world has changed. We don't face an enemy of large cities and long range intercontinental missiles

Hello China. Not to mention North Korea, Pakistan (expect them to have much better missile tech in a decade or two). Terrorism is little tactical threat a thorn in the side at best, you're real problem are emerging nuclear powers. In this case, MAD applies.

As you just stated very finely, terrorism is a civil issue, an intelligence matter, nukes are of no use in this respect. Munitions are more likely to be scattered, and training camps, or concentrations of munitions can be easily dispatched using current airborne hardware, as we saw with incredible success in Afghanistan.

Terrorist orgs probably wont have nukes, or rather, won't develop them, if they are sold them, that is a matter for intelligence. That eventuality is likely with N.Korea.

Also, the idea of retaliating with nukes if attacked in kind by terrorists is idiotic. Who would you target? Tactically it makes no sense, although it does politically. I assume that governments are run on rationality, and not petty revenge.

Our current detterent of 20Mt intercontinental missiles are obsolete against this new threat. We need a new deterrence, something smaller that can threaten the terrorists even in the deepest underground hide-outs

You have 15 megaton lumps IIRC, and those are biggest which are being phased out in favour of smaller 200ish kiloton units fired from subs.

As you quite rightly put it, terrorists are quite happy to die, and are not feeling threatened by the USA, Al Qaeda is as much of a threat as ever even after Afghanistan and Iraq have fallen, so what makes you think they will be intimidated into pacification by nukes that are of limited effectiveness against them?

EDIT: I'm not 100% sure about 15 megaton lumps being the most powerful in use by USA. In any case, you don't want to be too close to either if they go off...