Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Nuclear Weapon Modernization Undercuts Disarmament

Posted by Soulskill on from the perfecting-the-planetcracker dept.

Lasrick writes: John Mecklin details exactly how nuclear weapons modernization is kick-starting a new arms race, and how modernizing these weapons to make them more accurate and stealthy puts the world at even greater risk of nuclear war: "[T]his is precisely why the U.S. Congress rejected the Air Force’s requests for low-yield, precision-guided nuclear weapons in the 1990s: Their very accuracy increases the temptation to use them." The issue is not getting very much attention, but the patience of the non-nuclear states is wearing thin, and a breakthrough in public awareness may be on the horizon: "The disarmament debate is likely to make this spring's NPT conference a contentious one and just might be loud enough to make the public aware that a new type of nuclear arms race is unfolding around the world."

6 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded by Xenkar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Often by the United States of America or other western powers. When nations see that having a nuke prevents other nations from toppling them, nukes become vital for stability.

    Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.

    1. Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... or slaughtering their own citizens.

      I think you mean "holding back their oil". Because slaughtering their citizens never really registered on any country's radar, except as an excuse to accomplish something else.

    2. Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And Malaysia for Rubber, as well. They did so in part because the USA had organized a trade embargo on oil, rubber, and related POL products, in response to the Japanese invasion of China (and the subsequent occupation of the French colonies in Indochina).

      The Philippines was the forwardmost US military base in the Pacific at the time, and sat directly astride the ocean route from Malaysia/Indonesia to Japan. But moreover it was fully expected by Japan that the US would declare war in response to any attack on British or Dutch possessions in East Asia, so Japan struck first, bombing the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor, and following up with invasions of key strategic and economic locations.

    3. Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded by fsagx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That episode guaranteed that no tin horn dictator will EVER give up their WMD program.

      That seems logical, but Assad did just that:

      Syria will give up control of chemical weapons

  2. Re:Wait... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one? A nuke of any size going off *anywhere* as an act of war would immediately send up the balloon, and cause an all-out retaliation. Frig sakes, even Curtis LeMay knew that when he responded to Kennedy's request for a series of nuclear attack/response scenarios with a single puffed-out version of 'nuke them back to the effing stone age'.

    Seriously... if you use a nuke first these days, the entire planet will cut you off, if they don't come at you with everything they have. If you were nuked first, then the taboo has already been broken, and the world would almost expect you to unleash hell on whoever bombed you.

    I realize that global politics is a lot more subtle and complex than most folks realize, and maybe I'm wrong, but on this subject, it seems pretty damned cut and dried.

    You say these things as if they were fact. They are not, they are suppositions.
    The same way a defensive system can alter strategic balance, so can improved nuclear tipped missiles with highly accurate targetting systems. MAD is irrelevant in regional conflicts. Think about how close a nuclear exchange is possible between India and Pakistan. Or Israel targetting single military installations in Iran with bunker buster that are nuclear not conventional. Americans, Russians, French, British and the Cinese think of nuclear weapons as political weapons. Not military weapons. But if you manage to make a very precise low yield nuclear missile that incinerates let's say less than 1 km^2 it becomes by this simple performance an offensive weapon.Just like neutron bombs were all the rage in the seventies.

  3. Ukraine? by jklovanc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most nuclear countries will see Ukraine as a cautionary tale. They disarmed and got invaded.