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

Good?

[LMariachi]

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.

Aren't fallout and collateral damage the main problems people have with nuclear weapons? Without those factors The Bomb wouldn't have that enormous stigma attached to it, it would be just another bomb, albeit larger. Since the Cold War is over, and since everyone involved knows that smaller tactical nukes exist, there's no reason that the response to any and all non-testing nuclear explosion has to be full-on empty the silos.

Re:Good?

[Gilgaron]

Agreed... with minimal collateral damage, does the technique we use to blow people up carry any particular moral weight over that we blew them up to begin with?

Re:Good?

[JoshuaZ]

Not using nuclear weapons at all is an important taboo precisely because it can get out of hand so quickly. No nuclear launches is a clear bright line, in some sense a Schelling point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) . Once small nukes are in use, the bright line no longer exists.

Re:Good?

[Rei]

The concern is and always has been stepping over the red "no nukes allowed" line. Once both sides of a conflict start playing with nukes, even if it starts out with small, tactical, targeted nukes, the other side will too, and whichever side is losing will be tempted to scale up, and ultimately you're opening up the risk of escalation into full blown strategic nuclear exchange. It's been the key reason why tactical nukes have been largely avoided for so long. The consequences of nuclear war ever breaking out between major powers are just so atrocious that one doesn't want to play lightly with anything that could make it easier to happen. Even when one side isn't a major power, we all know that these regional conflicts have a habit of escalating, and that different sides have a habit of misestimating how much of a line they're stepping over from the perspective of their rivals.

That said, the US may forced into this whether they want to or not, given that Russia's been developing - and has started deploying - tactical nuclear delivery systems. They've really been waving around their "nuclear card" a lot lately - my favorite was when they "accidentally" let a news camera capture a picture of design plans for a submarine-based cobalt bomb doomsday device among papers an officer was carrying.

Nuclear war gaming is a really morbid topic... the whole "if we do X, then they're going to do Y, then we'll have to do Z" thing, because the casualty numbers are so absurd... "If we do X here, then their attack will only kill between 6,3 and 7,5 million people, but our counter will kill between 23 and 26 million people, so that works out well to our favor..." The fact that even a "win" is really a devastating loss to the victor is what led to the concept of MAD.

Even on the battlefield it leads to weird situations. For example, part of the reason that neutron bombs were developed was the realization that should Soviet forces (which stressed a "deep battle" doctrine involving huge numbers of rapidly advancing tanks) flood into western Europe, the west could use nuclear weapons against their forces to try to stop them, but tanks tend to have a habit of surviving nuclear blasts unless they're near the epicenter. The radiation load might be fatal to the crew, but that could take days or more, and meanwhile the Soviet "zombie crews" could have taken control of a large chunk of Europe before they become too sick to continue. With neutron bombs, Soviets would have to respond by spreading their tanks out more, which greatly reduces their ability to be defended and supplied. It's possible to make tanks resistant to neutrons by incorporating neutron absorbers, such as boron, or moderators like hydrogen... but ironically the depleted uranium sometimes used in tank armour these days could actually enhance the yield of the radiation by undergoing fast fission.

Oh, and it's worth pointing out that dial-a-yield nuclear bombs are often effectively neutron bombs at their lower yield settings.

Re:Good?

[Applehu Akbar]

"Once both sides of a conflict start playing with nukes, even if it starts out with small, tactical, targeted nukes, the other side will too, and whichever side is losing will be tempted to scale up, "

Even if the conflict is with a non-nuclear country, or one with no long-distance delivery technology, there is a fear that a contained strike, say the US blasting an ISIS underground redoubt, would 'normalize' nuclear warfare in the future.

Re:Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like most weapons systems that will never be used, this is another example of the US taxpayer getting shafted by defense contractors. Fallout limited? That is pure nonsense. Face it folks, we keep getting fleeced by the government and their buddies in the "defense" industry. This is another in a long string of wasteful expenditures for hardware that will sit unused until we have to pay to dismantle them 50 years from now. Stop acting like weapons are cool. They aren't. That money could be spent on fixing our busted infrastructure if you push your representatives to stop wasting so much money on weapons and war.

Apparently, the word 'deterrent' doesn't exist in the "doctor" has on his desk.

Re: Good?

[Kythe]

The problem isn't the use of weapons with less collateral damage. The problem is the response from those who have nukes, but not the precision-guided, limited collateral damage variety.

It's a psychological issue--once nukes have been used, it's more feasible to respond by using nukes. And lest we think the psychology of the situation doesn't matter, remember that mutually assured destruction (MAD), which kept the world fron nuking itself back to the stone age for more than a half century, was and is based entirely on the psychology of nuclear weapon use.

Re:Good?

[theycallmeB]

The would still be collateral damage, fallout and stigma, just less of it. But I think the real loss of ever using a weapon like these is that when dealing with countries like North Korea fine distinctions don't work. If you use any sort of nuclear weapon in one limited situation they will maintain they can use all types they have whenever the Dear Leader is feeling pissy.

There really is a great deal of value in simple messages like "Never again."

Re:Good?

[blackanvil]

"Once both sides of a conflict start playing with nukes, even if it starts out with small, tactical, targeted nukes, the other side will too, and whichever side is losing will be tempted to scale up, "

Even if the conflict is with a non-nuclear country, or one with no long-distance delivery technology, there is a fear that a contained strike, say the US blasting an ISIS underground redoubt, would 'normalize' nuclear warfare in the future.

Not to mention that if the fallout is encountered by even one citizen of another nuclear state, let alone an embassy or crosses a border into a nuclear armed country, they may well consider that an attack and retaliate. Nuking Daesh should be safe-ish in that one regard, but even there you have Israel (still denying they have nukes), would they show restraint if, say, fallout from a Russian nuke contaminated their northern territories? How would Turkey, a member of NATO, respond if their country was irradiated? If a Chinese embassy was rendered uninhabitable by fallout, what would they do? Best to leave that can of radioactive worms unopened.

Re:Good?

[tinkerton]

What do you mean tactical nukes have been avoided? Usage or deployment? Bush the elder once decommissioned whole categories of tactical nukes unilaterally(and in a stealth operation too) because he considered them too dangerous.

Anyway I agree the 'red line' argument is important. And currently we have a combination of increased tensions and reduced threshold for using nukes. Reduced because people have become too confident 'since we managed pretty well for such a long time' . I think that confidence has always been far too large, and if I see people like general Breedlove, whom I wouldn't trust with a box of matches, then I'm absolutely not confident we'll be alright.

This has obvious value

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

1) China and Russia are likely to do the same thing eventually. Russia in particular is pumping a lot of money into modernizing their nukes. Do we really want to end up having to catch up here?
2) This might make China and Russia less likely to start some crap if they fear that the US might nuke them in retaliation. There are a lot of countries that would be really happy if both China and Russia would calm down right now.

Re:This has obvious value

[TheReaperD]

I'm not sure that having nuclear weapons that do less damage will deter China or Russia. Right now, if they develop and then consider using precision nuclear weapons against us, the fact that we have old-fashioned, city leveling bombs only would give them more of a reason to decide not to use their future precision-guided weapons. That's the reasoning I see working.

Re:This has obvious value

[rickb928]

You want to deter China or Russia?

These aren't the weapons you're looking for. We have those already.

Re:This has obvious value

[DarkOx]

Only if they think we will actually use those 20kt+ devices. If they think we might be to squeamish for that sorta thing and try to fight back with traditional chemical explosives and arms they suddenly have a huge advantage on the battle field. At least if their assessment of us proves accurate (I suspect it would).

Smaller more target-able devices would also be potentially very useful against naval power. A lot of US force projection depends on aircraft carriers. If you could reliably target and destroy a carrier using a payload delivered by rocket, with a small enough device that on shore impacts direct, tsunami, and fallout were minimal, you could potentially massively degrade the USA's ability to fight in many areas of the world.

You might also be able to do that without turning the entire rest of the world against you. Having only targeted and destroyed a Man-of-War, which is pretty universally considered a legitimate target.

Re:This has obvious value

[TheReaperD]

I hate replying to myself but, I had an extra item to add and we can't edit here.

The problem that the US has had in the middle east is that we have tried all three general policies: diplomacy only, limited engagement and full regime change. The end result has been similar in all three, all the countries involved and their neighbors hate us, people have vowed to get revenge on us for our actions (or inactions) and it has been a large to huge drain on the national treasury. Limited engagement seems to have had the fewest US lives lost and tend to be the cheapest, even above diplomacy. The problem with this option is that you have to support one the the existing factions and when it comes to the middle-east, factions that we find acceptable to our policy goals is next to impossible (see Libya and our current problems with [IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh]). It's literally a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario.

Precision on a MAD deterrent

[IndustrialComplex]

I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with a precision modernization program for a nuclear arsenal. For better or worse, our MAD deterrent seems to have worked. No country has used nuclear weapons since WWII. They are doomsday weapons and any use of them would escalate a conflict well into a total-warfare situation regardless of their precision. A nuclear weapon applied even on the most restricted and limited of targets is the most destabilizing thing you can probably do. Worse yet, it encourages other countries to consider 'usable' nuclear weapons of their own. As much as I hate our current situation I would hope we would work towards disarmament rather than finding more palatable means to deploy nuclear weapons.

Of course...

[cirby]

The FAS also claimed that more-precise weapons back in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s would cause nuclear war.

And that a missile defense system would cause nuclear war (except for the one the Soviets built and still use, of course).

Oddly enough, over the last half-century, none of the things the FAS said would increase the chances of a nuclear war actually caused a nuclear war. The things that nearly caused WWIII were things they never actually mentioned...

from the article...

[drewsup]

" and its yield can be dialed up or down depending on the target, to minimize collateral damage."
But... does it go to 11?

Re:from the article...

[jgtg32a]

With dial a yield it is more about being able crank it all the way down to 11.

Dial-a-nukes

[Rei]

knowing the radioactive fallout and collateral damage would be limited.

Um, the more you dial it down, generally the dirtier the explosion. For a given bomb, higher yields equate to more complete fission of the fuel and higher neutron fluxes that are better at transmuting the heavy actinides into lighter, shorter-lived products. Likewise, the bigger the bomb, the smaller the fallout relative to its yield - they're more effective at dispersion and more of the power comes from fusion, less from fission. For example, the Tsar Bomba was a remarkably clean bomb despite its tremendous yield, while the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (low yield, low percentage burn, pure fission) were very dirty.

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:Dial-a-nukes

[ComputerGeek01]

I somehow doubt that there is an actual "dial" on the device, be it digital or analog. I feel like that feature is referring to a field serviceable warhead that can be swapped out; as opposed to one that is fixed in place from the OEM. Although your idea is not without merit, the US has experimented using nuclear fallout as an area denial weapon in the past. That just doesn't sound like the kind of thing that they can sell to Obama.

Re:Dial-a-nukes

[smellsofbikes]

I somehow doubt that there is an actual "dial" on the device, be it digital or analog. I feel like that feature is referring to a field serviceable warhead that can be swapped out; as opposed to one that is fixed in place from the OEM. Although your idea is not without merit, the US has experimented using nuclear fallout as an area denial weapon in the past. That just doesn't sound like the kind of thing that they can sell to Obama.

Note that I don't know what I'm talking about, but my understanding is that dial-a-yield refers to the use of cores that are injected with lithium deuteride, to fusion-boost a fission reaction, and the dial is how much lithium deuteride is injected (and how much is left in the supply, which is carried along with the bomb.) In that sense, it is pretty much a dial because it's the same warhead hardware regardless of yield, with a software or hardware change that determines the explosive yield.

Re:The point of nukes

[rickb928]

"you are unavoidably and intentionally targeting non-combatants and infrastructure when you make the decision to use one."

Hence both the MAD protocol and the palpable reluctance to use 'conventional' nuclear weapons.

"Yes this remains true for "tactical nukes" too."

Um, if the yield is small enough, the fallout/residual radioactivity are the only detriments, and if you're targeting underground facilities, these may actually be tolerable, relative to the threat of not using them.

Put simply, nukes that are small enough and precise enough are merely really powerful bombs, and only inspire a slightly irrational response such as "ZOMG NUKES!", so are probably a last-resort option for certain tactical targets. Now, properly define 'tactical' in this context, and you can find hypotheticals that fit the bill.

Re:The point of nukes

[DarkOx]

The term collateral damage when applied to nukes is kind of meaningless.

Not at all. In the context of "Total War" collateral damage would be harm done to to you or your allies. Destruction of an entire enemy city and nothing else would be zero collateral damage. You are attempting to destroy their will and ability to make war. You break the their means of production, you break their will to fight when they realize their homes and loved ones cannot be protected thru their military efforts. The destruction of non-combatants and infrastructure is valid and I would argue even moral warefare tactic if you yourself are in fact under mortal threat, maybe even if the threat you face falls well below that level.

There was for example little or no "collateral damage" when we bombed Japan, or for that matter Dresden.

Considering Syria today and the siege warfare taking place, I am not even so sure its all that great the UN and various groups are getting food aide in. If the public was starving so to would eventually the combatants (though probably only after mass non-com casualties because after all the solders will be the last not to eat they have guns after all). Short of starving I am not sure what it will take to get these various groups to give up the fight. By getting food in their we prolong the siege, and the bloodshed.

Not sure what the issue is here

[nehumanuscrede]

We've had precision guided nuclear capable weapons systems for years.
Just to pick one ( since it was my particular specialty for years ): the Tomahawk Cruise Missile.

The Block III variant came in four fantastic standard flavors that could be ship, air and even sub-surface launched:

109A - Nuclear Tipped with a W-80 Warhead. Dial-a-yield of 5kt or 150kt. ( Google the W-80 for more info )
109B - Anti-ship flavor. Conventional warhead.
109C - Land-attack flavor. Conventional warhead.
109D - Land-attack flavor, sub-munitions dispensing warhead.

This is just the Tomahawk. I haven't kept up with the other cruise missile variants, gravity or guided smart-bombs, or even
the advances ( if any ) in the ballistic missile platforms.

So, I'm not entirely sure what all the fuss is about since we've had selective yield weapons since at least the late 70's.
Personally, since there is no putting the genie back in the bottle, I would prefer a much smaller yield high precision device
over the city-flattening strategic overkill ones that defined the Cold War era.

Folks may argue that the desire to use them would increase since they're not as terrible as their strategic brethren, but some
of these weapons are older than many of the folks reading this and have had this capability the entire time. Yet, we haven't been
tossing them around en-masse during our many, many conflicts around the world over the years. Unlikely we're going to start now.

Re:Great

[penguinoid]

It's so accurate you can shoot it right down a building's chimney, before it detonates and levels the city.

Re:$30B a year for war ("defense") is cool

[TheReaperD]

What are you a commie?

The reality is that half of our military spending, none of which currently goes to fund or support troops, would pay for universal healthcare, fund social security and a whole bunch of other programs. Hell, the failed F35 project the congress refuses to let die would pay for health care by itself!

Re:The point of nukes

[evilviper]

The main problem is that they are weapons of mass destruction that can vaporize entire cities in an instant.

Non-nuclear devices like the FOAB can do much the same.

Conventional napalm destroyed Japanese & German cities, and killed as many people as the first atomic bombs, yet it doesn't have the stigma.

The fallout merely adds the problem. The term collateral damage when applied to nukes is kind of meaningless.

Quite the opposite. Collateral damage is a huge issue with nukes. Haven't you ever heard of Nuclear Winter? Destroying the ability of the entire planet to sustain life, and for years to come, is about the biggest glaring example of collateral damage you could ever come-up with.

Re:The old adage

[nmb3000]

Wouldn't this destroy the old adage: "Almost only counts with horse shoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons?"

Guess it will need to be "Almost only counts with horse shoes, hand grenades, and hydrogen bombs." Accurate and alliterative!

Re:Great

[Richard_at_work]

It means you can get it down the entrance tunnel or ventilation shaft of that deep bunker before detonating - destroy the bunker with a smaller warhead than a ground level nuke would need to penetrate.

Re:Great

[thegarbz]

For when you really want to be sure those people in front of the fireplace will be turned to glass, and not just die of burns and debris.

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.

Re:The point of nukes

[swb]

There was for example little or no "collateral damage" when we bombed Japan, or for that matter Dresden.

There was huge amounts of what we today call collateral damage, but back then they didn't use the term "collateral damage".

Now it's "collateral damage" because we're killing a bunch of civilians or destroying civil infrastructure we'd rather not.

Then it wasn't collateral damage because we MEANT to kill civilians and destroy civil infrastructure because we believed that breaking the enemy's ability and will to fight would aid our war effort and shorten the war.

That's why it's called total warfare (or scorched Earth warfare) -- you don't want the enemy to have ANYTHING that enables them to fight, and that includes a population able to function at any meaningful level of productivity, and they aren't very productive if they are starving, homeless and lacking any infrastructure that enables them to be productive.

This was the partial goal of the allied military and very much part of the post-war pacification of Germany, where deliberate allied policies forced the population into famine and stripped them of much of their industrial capacity. Make no mistake, there was no accidental, collateral damage to German civilians, it was a deliberate policy during and after the war to crush the German population into submission.

Re: Great

[Richard_at_work]

Considering even a small nuke would come in at a weight exceeding that of a 2000lb LGB, mass and penetration isnt an issue - and delayed fusing is a norm for most guided munitions these days...

The point about having a small nuke is that you can take out that deep bunker with much less collateral damage - the deeper and better protected the bunker, the bigger bang you need at the surface, which means more collateral damage. Put the nuke down the ventilation shaft or down the entrance tunnel and you suddenly need much less bang as you are penetrating much less overburden.

Its the same reason you needed a 20,000lb earthquake bomb in WW2 to take out targets we hit with a 250lb guided munition today.

And I have no idea what you are talking about regarding wifi.

Think Star Wars

[azcoyote]

It's perfect for Death Stars, since they always build them with access tunnels that go right to the core.

Re: Great

[godel_56]

Considering even a small nuke would come in at a weight exceeding that of a 2000lb LGB, mass and penetration isnt an issue - and delayed fusing is a norm for most guided munitions these days...

According to Wikipedia the tactical version of the B61 weighs just 700 pounds (336kg) and the B61 mod 11 bunker-buster weighs 1200 pounds.

Re:The point of nukes

[quenda]

For example, Wikipedia says the B41 could destroy reinforced structures in an 8-mile radius and houses in a 15-mile radius.

It does? Where do you get that? I'm seeing 2.4km and 6km (5psi, 4 mile?) respectively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'm Australian, so "large city" means fifty times that area. And "vaporize" does not mean blast-wave damage.

For perspective, if such a weapon were targeted at Lower Manhattan, it would totally destroy everything from Newark to Queens

Looking at map ... you are talking 20km away . Several kPa / 1psi. That's a bit of storm damage, not destruction (5psi). A huge difference - what is your source?

Re:$30B a year for war ("defense") is cool

[david_thornley]

Last I looked, Germany was paying about two-thirds of our health costs per capita, and everyone else was significantly lower. Some healthy countries don't spend more per capita than we spend on Medicare and Medicaid.

I really don't like the new "American Exceptionalism" that believes we can't possibly implement things properly that every other developed nation has done.

Re:Plowshare.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

But then again they have been using depleted uranium rounds on the battlefield for years so It may just be considered acceptable now.

Depleted uranium is the waste left after something like 95% of the U-235 is removed from Uranium ore. It's not a "nuclear weapon" - the bulk of the nuclear weapon fuel has been removed. It is only about 60% as radioactive as natural uranium, which makes it a poor candidate for a radiological weapon, and is actually used for radiation SHIELDING in medical and industrial devices. (Natural uranium is not very radioactive - which is why there's so much of it around "geological time" after the formation of the Earth.) It's also used for things like counterweights, boat ballast and keels, and other civilian uses where something heavy-but-small is needed.

Biological issues with depleted uranium contamination seem to be primarily heavy metal toxicity (though effects of its low level of radioactivity aren't ruled out). It's used as a denser, and thus more effective, replacement for lead in bullets. Lead contamination is well known to be very toxic, and lead sticks around in the body substantially longer than uranium.