US Modernizes Nuclear Arsenal With Smaller, Precision-Guided Atomic Weapons (nytimes.com)

HughPickens.com writes: The NY Times reports that the Pentagon has been developing the B61 Model 12, the nation's first precision-guided atom bomb. Adapted from an older weapon, the Model 12 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 can be dialed up or down depending on the target, to minimize collateral damage. The B61 Model 12 flight-tested last year in Nevada and is the first of five new warhead types planned as part of an atomic revitalization estimated to cost up to $1 trillion over three decades. As a family, the weapons and their delivery systems move toward the small, the stealthy and the precise.

And some say that's the problem. The Federation of American Scientists argues that the high accuracy and low destructive settings means military commanders might press to use the bomb in an attack, knowing the radioactive fallout and collateral damage would be limited. Increasing the accuracy also broadens the type of targets that the B61 can be used to attack. Some say that a new nuclear tipped cruise missile under development might sway a future president to contemplate "limited nuclear war." Worse yet, because the missile comes in nuclear and non-nuclear varieties, a foe under attack might assume the worst and overreact, initiating nuclear war. In a recent interview, General James Cartwright, a retired four-star general who last served as the eighth Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says the overall modernization plan might change how military commanders looked at the risks of using nuclear weapons. "What if I bring real precision to these weapons?" says Cartwright. "Does it make them more usable? It could be."

Comments

Re:Dial-a-nukes

[TheReaperD]

Yea, I learned a little bit about it when a few of us got together on a brain exercise about if we could build a nuke out of materials we could actually obtain. (And, if any law enforcement is listening; no, we did not acquire any materials, build anything and the plans were erased right after we were done.) The yield was going to be low and the fallout was disgusting but, it would have worked. Strangely enough, one of the friends that got a masters in nuclear physics for fun checked our math for us and calculated the fallout. When he gave us the calculation, he said basically the same thing, the more powerful the blast per amount of material, the less fallout you get. So, if you want a small, clean explosion, you use the least amount of material possible to produce the explosion. Any remaining material just floods the area with radiation that lingers for a very, very long time.

Re:Of course...

[Tailhook]

The US has precision nukes! Quick; nudge the the Doomsday Clock to 23:58 and call a press conference!

Meanwhile Putin has scheduled a fusillade of Topol-M test launches for 2016. Chirp, chirp, chirp.... nothing said.

It's no mystery to me why Trump is a thing.

Re:The point of nukes

[mrchaotica]

As far as nuclear weapons go, the Hiroshima bomb was pretty darn small. (Not as small as "tactical nukes," but small.) Hydrogen bombs such as the B83, which is at 1.2 megatons the most powerful US nuclear bomb in active service (let alone discontinued or experimental weapons such as the 25-megaton B41 or the 50-megaton Tsar Bomba) are perfectly capable of completely destroying even large cities. For example, Wikipedia says the B41 could destroy reinforced structures in an 8-mile radius and houses in a 15-mile radius. For perspective, if such a weapon were targeted at Lower Manhattan, it would totally destroy everything from Newark to Queens (and houses all the way to Yonkers and Hempstead)... before considering things like fires. Admittedly, you might need more than one if you were targeting a really spread-out area like greater LA.