Mini-nukes on US agenda

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dissident
and I support dope bombs.

Aerosol dispersed LSD?

And actually, elijah, the problem with nuclear proliferation is guys like Kim, who is not thought to be stable, and not likely to be deterred by MAD.

I would think the point of some of these weapons would be that should Kim ever really go mad dog, his teeth could be pulled without the use of larger, more devastating weapons on the Korean Peninsula. Substitute Kim for whatever lunatic might come to power in countries with nuclear capability and underdeveloped political systems.

Which would be better? Taking out Kim's toys with these, once there was no choice, or taking out North Korea with city busters?

[Whaleboy]

the problem with nuclear proliferation is guys like Kim, who is not thought to be stable, and not likely to be deterred by MAD

Not going to last long. Either way, he'll be taken out soon, and the sooner the better imo. Rational leadership recognises the appropriately named MAD. China / Russia (the longer term threats) are not tinpot dictatorships, MAD is recognised there.

I would think the point of some of these weapons would be that should Kim ever really go mad dog, his teeth could be pulled without the use of larger, more devastating weapons on the Korean Peninsula

Tactically speaking, airstrikes would work better. On the other hand, that particular example is probably the best use of these weapons, but it seems uneconomical to develop a lump for one particular mission... we want generic stuff now!!

Substitute Kim for whatever lunatic might come to power in countries with nuclear capability and underdeveloped politcal systems

Like I said, North Koreas are very rare. Either they have no hope of getting nukes, or they have the sense to consider MAD (and in most cases of course, both).

Which would be better? Taking out Kim's toys with these, once there was no choice, or taking out North Korea with city busters?

You got me there (assuming Kim is in ultimate power over strategy, not someone rational), but of course, its still very risky, risks escalation, not to mention radiation etc. On a side note, I'd want proof he was an actual threat and willing/about to use them, otherwise, every nation has the same (and zero imo) right to nukes.

Besides, its always given me great hope that we've had a weapon of devastaing power for the better part of a century since the last world war, yet since, that weapon has never been used. I hope we're not going to end that good run on the whims of some warmongering conservative idiot and a tinpot dictator.

[Whaleboy]

Aerosol dispersed LSD?

Sounds like a plan to me!!!

(See my earlier post on weed bombs). I'm off to bed.. adios!

[DinoDoc]

1) This has been out in public since at least February of this year. Why are you just reacting to it now?

2) How will these new mini-nukes differ from the B61-11?

[Sava]

It's prudent to consider all viable methods of nuclear deterence. I know some peaceniks think nukes are evil, but they prevent full scale conflicts. The threat of nuclear annhilation forces everyone to think for a second before going to the next level. I just hope that such a doctrine doesn't diminish the capability of the US to deliver a massive nuclear strike if needed.

[Dis]

how unstable is Kim? Everyone in the U.S. says he is unstable. But how do the Russians and Chinese feel about him? they are neighbors and may have more insight into his mental state.

I can't see Kim nuking anyone. Blackmail is his game.

[Sava]

Diss, Dude... China is massive, and could stomp all of Korea flat... Kim Jong is China's *****... China is jerking us around and they are watching us sweat.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by elijah
Not going to last long. Either way, he'll be taken out soon, and the sooner the better imo. Rational leadership recognises the appropriately named MAD. China / Russia (the longer term threats) are not tinpot dictatorships, MAD is recognised there.

I think the article indicates that these are being developed precisely because it is not the Russians and Chinese who are the current concerns. MAD works/worked between the Russians, Chinese, British, French, and Americans.

Now we must deal with proliferation. These weapons appear, from the report, to be intended to be used with less conventional opponents than the larger, and more rational foes of the past. The recent past indictaes that threats may come from people who do not conform to game theory.

It is precisely the tin pot dictator that these are intended for.

Tactically speaking, airstrikes would work better. On the other hand, that particular example is probably the best use of these weapons, but it seems uneconomical to develop a lump for one particular mission... we want generic stuff now!!

Like I said, North Koreas are very rare. Either they have no hope of getting nukes, or they have the sense to consider MAD (and in most cases of course, both).

Unfortunately not. Talk to the South Koreans. Seoul is ringed by North Korean artillery that can rain down utter destruction on that city, and it is largely well emplaced in rough terrain, with supply and support buried deep. Or so I've heard. Additionally, Kim's nuclear weapons (when and if he gets them, which could be now) would most likely be buried very, very deep. Not to mention the man himself if push ever came to shove.

Do you think it would deter Kim to know that if he ever decides that a given day was a good day to go ballistic, that where ever he was, he could be snuffed without too much damage to the rest of the country around him? Even if it did not deter him, would it not be good to eliminate all of his potential arsenals very soon after the first nuclear detonation over a Japanese city or a US Fleet?

Feel free to replace Kim with some Iranian strong man who might seize power if and when the liberals in that country push too far, too fast. Or, a clerical nut case who might take over in a people's revolution in Pakistan. Perhaps less likely, but possible, something could go horribly wrong in Isreal, again with some nut bar doing something unexpected when the opportunity presents itself. Or ...

Militaries do precisely what the US military is doing. They plan for and adapt to changing times and circumstances. When the last threat is gone, they look for new threats and develop weapons systems to be able to effectively engage them based on reasonably possible scenarios. At least they do that if the nation they serve wants to survive.

You got me there (assuming Kim is in ultimate power over strategy, not someone rational), but of course, its still very risky, risks escalation, not to mention radiation etc. On a side note, I'd want proof he was an actual threat and willing/about to use them, otherwise, every nation has the same (and zero imo) right to nukes.

Besides, its always given me great hope that we've had a weapon of devastaing power for the better part of a century since the last world war, yet since, that weapon has never been used. I hope we're not going to end that good run on the whims of some warmongering conservative idiot and a tinpot dictator.

When and if the chips ever hit the fan, I doubt you and I will be briefed. It will be some form of crisis. Leaders will be given information by their 'systems' and they will make decisions. Most likely they will make those decisions after consulting with leaders of other interested nations. Such as, I severely doubt any US President would ever use one of these weapons without consulting with Moscow and Beijing. That would most likely be for insurance against escalation.

Of course, the US might some day deploy such weapons in support of the Russians, if things go horribly wrong in some of the former Republics. That would make consultation a little easier.

btw, warmongering conservative idiot? Showing your slip a little bit, aren't you?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by elijah
They won't be able to make it work on the other hand. Hiroshima bomb was about 3x critical mass (the mass of nuclear material required for a chain reaction), so reasonably, the smallest explosion (fission) will be in the region of 5 kilotons. Fusion explosions require fission "igniters", plus the fusion reaction itself, so they cannot be less than twice the size of a minimum fission blast. Why are they pursuing an objective that would require precise control over subatomic particles, which we don't have, thus any mediocre gcse or A level physics student will tell you this endeavor is futile, and frankly idiotic.

The mini-nuke issue is separate from the new generation fusion device issue. Your assumption about critical mass and bomb size is also wrong - the explosive yield does not strictly vary linearly to mass of the fissile material - the way the explosion is triggered and the level and duration of neutron release, plus the critical mass creation and containment all influence yield.

As far as the development policy goes, I agree it's unnecessary and counterproductive, but I also see it as very unlikely to get funded beyond minimal R&D.

[Whaleboy]

This has been out in public since at least February of this year. Why are you just reacting to it now?

Its been out for way longer than that, but I couldn't find a story until yesterday to justify a thread

I know some peaceniks think nukes are evil, but they prevent full scale conflicts

Agreed, hence I believe it was prudent during the cold war for both sides to have nukes, rather than just one. Of course it would have been preferable for none to have nukes but lets be realistic here.

These weapons appear, from the report, to be intended to be used with less conventional opponents than the larger, and more rational foes of the past.

In short, terrorists. However, as previously iterated, this is a social/civil phenomenon, not military. Dealing with them via military means may well be popular at home, but it doesn't tactically work. Intelligence, covert assassinations, undercover operations etc is the best way to combat this.

Unfortunately not. Talk to the South Koreans

I meant North Koreas as nations. Madmen with nukes. Still I think Kim's madness is played up in the West, propaganda et al.

The North Korea issue is irrelevant anyway, because in all likelihood, both Kim and Bush will be long gone by the time these weapons make it into US arsenal. I'm assuming that we will be at war after 2004 election. IMO Kim should be taken out now... he was the real danger all along.

Militaries do precisely what the US military is doing. They plan for and adapt to changing times and circumstances

As I said before, that is not the case here. America is fighting a war on terrorism using a military that is designed from the ground up to take on nation states, not social phenomena like terrorism. I could do a hell of a better job fighting terrorism than they could!!!! Needless to say, my reliance on intelligence instead of brute force would not win any votes, but it would work!

btw, warmongering conservative idiot? Showing your slip a little bit, aren't you?

Perhaps . While Bush is undoubtably better than Kim, I still think he is incompetant and reliant on advisors and the "powers that be" behind the presidency. Kim is just a madman, incapable let alone incompetant. Look at the economy of NK!!

The mini-nuke issue is separate from the new generation fusion device issue

To generate fusion (which will inherently be more powerful, like for like, that a fission bomb) without a fission starter, you would need to generate forces, in a short space of time, in a tiny area, consuming vast amounts of power, that are similar to conditions at the centre of the Sun. The Sun maintains this pressure because of its sheer mass, which acts as a pressure cooker. The size of the star is, incidentally, created by an equilibrium between the fusion reactions in the core and the tendency for gravitational collapse. Note that deuterium -> helium is the easiest fusion reaction.

Such a technology is simply not available. Particle accelerators can do this, but at the expense of huge amounts of power, and practically an atom at a time. That is hardly explosive. If you want a mini nuke, it has to be a fission device, a fusion bomb will be larger.

Your assumption about critical mass and bomb size is also wrong - the explosive yield does not strictly vary linearly to mass of the fissile material

Indeed... assuming the same density, yield would increase exponentially. Other factors effect critical mass though, I've been thinking about this, not least the shape of the material, density and ability to surrounding material to reflect back neutrons. The manner of trigger is not hugely relevant, the differences are not of major influence on the yield, though granted it does have an effect, for example, imploders vs gun-device.

The only way to make this kind of bomb would be a fission device, probably with similar features to the ones I specified, or a small fusion device powered by two small fission devices, but of course thats self-defeating. They won't be able to make small fusion nukes like this.

MtG: If you are correct about minimal R&D, it probably won't come to fruition for a number of years, if at all. I doubt there are many suitable targets for this weapon, like I said, it wont work against terrorists... this is not a conventional enemy.

[CerberusIV]

One of the points mentioned in the article was "enhanced radiation" weapons. Are they looking to resurrect the so-called neutron bomb that was touted for deployment in europe in the 80's. Thinking of that, is this a serious proposal or an indirect way of achieving something else?

Speaking of mini-nukes, what are the yields of things like nuclear warhead torpedoes and anti-submarine weapons? Are they covered by any treaty limitations?

[Panag]

U.S.: Pentagon Wants To Study Feasibility Of Battlefield 'Mini Nukes'
By Kathleen Knox

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he wants to study the feasibility of small, "low-yield" nuclear weapons. The idea is that they may be useful in destroying chemical and biological agents like anthrax. As RFE/RL reports, Rumsfeld is stressing that the administration only wants to research, not develop, these weapons. But what exactly is a "mini nuke," and what are the risks of even pushing for their study?

Prague, 21 May 2003 (RFE/RL) -- The weapons the Pentagon wants to study are so-called "mini nukes" -- nuclear weapons with an explosive force of less than five kilotons of TNT.

At their maximum, that's about one-third of the force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of World War II. Some 45,000 people are believed to have been killed in the initial blast.

The idea is that these "mini nukes" would be more effective than conventional weapons in destroying chemical or biological agents, especially such agents stored or manufactured in hardened underground bunkers.

General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke about the issue at the Pentagon yesterday.

"Nuclear weapons can have some effect on those [chemical and biological agents]. In terms of anthrax, it is said that gamma rays can destroy the anthrax spores, which is something we need to look at. And in chemical weapons, of course, the heat can destroy the chemical compounds and not develop that plume that conventional weapons might do that would then drift and, perhaps, bring others in harm's way," Myers said.

Proponents of low-yield nuclear weapons also say they're needed because America's bigger nuclear weapons are no deterrent against rogue states or terrorist groups. The argument goes that these bigger weapons are capable of causing mass death and destruction, so they are "too terrible to use" against an enemy.

Smaller weapons, such as low-yield nuclear devices, would be less devastating, so an enemy may believe the United States could use them. And that, arguably, makes them more of a deterrent.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday that the government only wants to conduct research and it has no intention of developing these weapons, which were mentioned in the controversial "nuclear posture review" published last year by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.

But critics are already warning of the dangers of a new arms race. "The nuclear genie is a very difficult one to keep in the bottle," says Robert Hewson, the editor of "Jane's Air-Launched Weapons."

"If the U.S. decides that it's OK to do something, what is to stop anyone else following the lead of the world's only superpower? There has been a general moratorium on nuclear weapons development in the U.S. since the early 1990s. That lead has been followed by all of the world's major powers with the exception of India and Pakistan. Some people will put forward a very convincing argument why it is right for America to do this, [but] there is simply no way that you can then turn around to other people and then say, 'This is bad and you shouldn't do it,' " Hewson says.

Other critics say the Bush administration has its science wrong. An open letter yesterday by prominent weapons scientists says small nukes would actually be more likely to scatter biological or chemical agents than to incinerate them.

If the United States does decide to develop them, experts say Washington would not be violating any treaties. That's because the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty doesn't specifically ban the development of new types of weapons.

Still, Gary Samore, a senior fellow for non-proliferation at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, says such development would arguably violate the spirit of that treaty.

"A full development of a new type of nuclear weapon would probably require a resumption of nuclear testing so that scientists would be confident in the new design. If the U.S. were to resume nuclear testing, that wouldn't violate any treaties because the Comprehensive Test Ban [Treaty] is not in force, but it's very likely that a number of other nuclear powers would follow suit. Russia, China, India, and Pakistan and so forth would be likely to resume nuclear testing if the United States did," Samore says.

Samore says it would be much wiser for the United States to develop specialized conventional weapons instead.

"I think the political ramifications of using nuclear weapons, even mini nuclear weapons in a conflict, are so high that it makes their use very questionable. And I think the president is much more likely to decide to use precision conventional arms rather than mini nukes in any real conflicts in the future," Samore says.

The U.S. Senate last night voted to lift 10-year-old restrictions on research and development of small nuclear weapons. The House of Representatives is scheduled to consider a compromise that would allow research -- but not development.

[Panag]

US plans for mini-nuke arsenal revealed

In-Depth Coverage

By Will Knight

A leaked Pentagon document has confirmed that the US is considering the introduction of a new breed of smaller nuclear weapons designed for use in conventional warfare. Such a move would mean abandoning global arms treaties.

The document, obtained by the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear weapons watchdog based in the US, describes plans for a gathering of senior military officials and nuclear scientists at the US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska, during the week of 4 August.

The meeting would discuss further development, testing and introduction of a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons. These weapons, with a destructive power of less than five kilotons, could be designed to penetrate an underground bunker before detonating. The Hiroshima bomb dropped by the US in 1945 had a yield of about 15 kilotons.

The US military believes mini-nukes may provide a stronger deterrent to rogue states. This is because the US would be more willing to use them than standard nuclear weapons, which have yields of hundreds of kilotons.

US government officials have confirmed the authenticity of the document, but say that it covers "very long range planning" and "what-if scenarios".

Enhanced radiation
Also on the agenda for the August meeting would be enhanced radiation weapons, also known as neutron weapons. These produce a large amount of radiation without a devastating blast and can be used to decimate weapons stockpiles and troops without destroying much infrastructure.

Patrick Garrett, an analyst with the military think-tank GlobalSecurity.org, says the document is alarming. "It's like looking at the cold war all over again," he told New Scientist.

"The fact that they're actually going to sit down and to talk about reliability issues and what would need to happen for production, testing and guidance, means these people are particularly serious about deploying these things sometime very soon," he says.

Garrett adds that the long-term implications of contaminating a target with radiation may not be well understood. "I don't think these people understand that any use of a nuclear weapon is a bad use," he says.

Treaty threat
The Los Alamos Study Group also condemns the plans for threatening international non-proliferation agreements. Greg Mello, head of LASG, says: "It is impossible to overstate the challenge these plans pose to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the existing nuclear test moratorium, and US compliance with Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which is binding law in the US."

Recent US interest in the development of smaller, more targeted nuclear weapons is well documented. New Scientist reported in October 2000 that the US Defense Appropriations Bill ordered a study of the feasibility of low-yield nuclear weapons. This overturned a ban on research into the development of battlefield nuclear weapons imposed in 1993.

In November 2002, New Scientist also reported a further $15m in US government funding for research into a nuclear "bunker buster", called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

[Dom Pedro II]

I think its all well and good that people think that mini-nukes will be a deterrant for terrorists... and for some who are not fanatical enough to get blown to atoms, that's true... but everybody keeps forgetting the OTHER side to this coin... what is to stop US from using these?

MAD was a deterrant for BOTH sides. If Russia hadn't had any nukes, we might actually have used them.

[Whaleboy]

Are they looking to resurrect the so-called neutron bomb

Thats not good.

They won't be a deterrant to terrorists, because the real ones havent worked, the conventional US military hasn't worked, and these hypothetical weapons will be of limited or no effectiveness against terrorists. Like I said, you have to understand this "threat" (if it justifies that word) before you blindly go around chucking your military at it.

If you ask me, it sounds more like a measure designed to heighten feelings of security at home, win popularity with strong arm tactics that dont make any actual tactical sense, or maybe pander to the interests (and agendas) of military and intelligence people who either don't understnad terrorism, or whose goals are different to the ones advertised in all the propaganda and government spin.