One of two Trident II D5 missiles tested June 2 by the U.S. Navy. Photo: U.S. Navy
USNI News: STRATCOM Commander Wants to Put Low Yield Nuclear Missiles on U.S. Submarines
CAPITOL HILL – If the U.S. opts to develop low-yield nuclear missiles, expect the Navy to deploy these weapons as part of the nation’s undersea nuclear deterrent, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command told lawmakers Thursday.
If developed, the U.S. low-yield nuclear weapons would fall within limits set by the New START nuclear arms treaty, Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, told the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee. New START, signed in 2010 by the U.S. and the Russian Federation, caps the number of nuclear warheads each nation deploys.
“We’ll actually remove big weapons from the submarines and put small ones in,” Hyten said. “We’re going to have still the same number weapons, they just going to give us a smaller yield. But we think that smaller yield actually gives us a better chance to deter our primary adversary.”
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I fail to see how deploying a lower yield nuclear weapon will have a greater deterrence on the other side. I know Russian doctrine when it comes to nuclear weapons is to throw everything at the other side and to completely obliterate the opponent. And as to the threat of being confronted by a "lower yield" nuclear weapon. To the Kremlin and the Russian military it will make no difference. A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. Whether it is a 10 kiloton weapon, 100 kiloton weapon, or a 1 megaton one, the counter response will be the same.
5 comments:
About as useful as asking for a nuke that will only kill bad guys, as in military and political types, but certainly not innocent citizens.
Well so the low yield ones have more accurate guidance system than most Russian ICBMs
And while accuracy of Russian icbm is usually sufficient for their payload, ie 500m accuracy is absolutely OK if your x Megaton payload is capable of flattening an entire city (literally 10km or so would be 100% destroyed on the surface), the problem arises if you a. Don't want to kill massive numbers of civilians and b. Want to hit reinforced underground bunkers. Even 10 megaton with 500m accuracy won't necessarily take out such a bunker. The nukes Russia uses are meant to detonate on or above surface. they are not good at getting nuclear underground bunkers due to lack of deep penetrating and guidance capabilities.
The US also does not use "salted" weapons like Russians. Russians are basically "we kill everyone abs everything and we're OK with the world end in a radioactive nightmare due to salting". The US seems to stick with its principles of minimising civilian deaths and impact on the environment. The B61s are actually not that terrible for the environment and zones wiped out using US nukes become habitable after a couple of years again. Russian models will end life for decades if not centuries and make not only the targeted area inhabitable but due to fallout and impact on oceans likely vast areas of a continent or earth itself, depending on how many are used in conflict.
I think US approach is not only more humane but also smarter
Think of it
In case of upcoming nuclear war, no one will win if Russia gets to retaliate. We all well die. Everyone. Chinese. American. Indian. European. Doesn't matter. We will all die and die miserably. No matter if Russia only shoots at USA
So all of the world will immediately have to pick sides. And no one will want Russia to be able to launch many. Because we all die. So there's an inherent incentive to work against Russia for all mankind. They seem to not think of that
Think of it. If the two states go to war and you have to pick a side in this conflict, you will pick the USA because if you don't, everyone will die. So you not only will have Europeans helping the US with forward deployed missile Shields but in the case of conflict almost a hundred nations will immediately take sides with the US. Because that's the only chance the world has to survive. Not a great chance, but better than letting Russia send all its nukes. China will also nuke Russia. I don't think china has forgotten that a few decades back Russians thought about wiping china off the maps using nukes. It was ironically the US back then that told Russia not to do it
So yeah. It's not too dumb abs certainly more humane what Americans do
I've read somewhere that even a low yield bomb dropped over a battlefield could still trigger a nuclear exchange regardless.
Of course... and the availability of low yield, (comparatively) low environmental impact nukes also could lead to a more likely use and blurring of lines of when to use such devices.
Post a Comment