New York Times: As U.S. Modernizes Nuclear Weapons, ‘Smaller’ Leaves Some Uneasy
As North Korea dug tunnels at its nuclear test site last fall, watched by American spy satellites, the Obama administration was preparing a test of its own in the Nevada desert.
A fighter jet took off with a mock version of the nation’s first precision-guided atom bomb. Adapted from an older weapon, it was designed with problems like North Korea in mind: Its computer brain and four maneuverable fins let it zero in on deeply buried targets like testing tunnels and weapon sites. And its yield, the bomb’s explosive force, can be dialed up or down depending on the target, to minimize collateral damage.
In short, while the North Koreans have been thinking big — claiming to have built a hydrogen bomb, a boast that experts dismiss as wildly exaggerated — the Energy Department and the Pentagon have been readying a line of weapons that head in the opposite direction.
WNU Editor: A nuclear weapon is still a nuclear weapon. Just because they are smaller and more accurate to use does not mean that the decision to use them will be easier.
2 comments:
WNU Editor - I couldn't disagree more; a high precision low-yield nuke is far more likely to be used than a high-yield weapon... Especially when taken into account that the EMP effect of a weapon is not directly proportional to the yield of the device itself. IE: a small (KT size) weapon can deliver more efficient EMP than a large thermonuclear device and with fewer casualties. North Korea's current weapons are of an ideal size to be used in this capacity.
Also consider the specific redesign of these devices so that they will fit inside the weapon bays of the (arguably) stealth F-35.(Think Hunt For Red October) Precision weapons haven't in the past meant they were less likely to be used. In fact precision weapons have made US involvement in conflicts all over the planet more common precisely because of the reduction in collateral damage.
I believe that the decision to use a small low-yield precision weapon deliverable by supersonic stealth aircraft is far more likely than a decision to use a large multi-warhead Minuteman II or a traceable cruise missile fired from either a B-2, B-52, or Naval Cruiser.
I would be more likely to justify its use given the right circumstances, and I can only assume with the rhetoric coming from our prospective wannabe leaders, so wouldn't they.
Agree with the editor great toy to have in your arsenal. A nuke is a nuke is a nuke nobody has and most likley never will regardless of yield.
Political suicide for any govt that does, this thing will gather dust and be dismantled once its useby is up.
Post a Comment