If developed, a low-yield nuclear warhead for US submarine-launched ballistic missiles will increase the likelihood of nuclear war.
Perhaps the most dangerous weapons program the US government has recently pursued involves a low-yield nuclear warhead for submarine-launched nuclear missiles. The arguments against development of such “small nukes” are legion and overwhelmingly compelling. In fact, almost exactly one year ago, I laid out some of those arguments in an article headlined, “Mini-nukes: The attempted resurrection of a terrible idea.” And, I said then, don’t just take my word for it; read the analysis of Jim Doyle, a former longtime technical staffer at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Simply put, the availability of “small” nuclear warheads increases the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used, and any use of nuclear weapons easily could (some experts might say “inevitably would”) lead to general nuclear war and the end of civilization.
In the last year, however, the Trump administration released a Nuclear Posture Review calling for development of a low-yield warhead for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Congress subsequently passed a defense authorization act that includes money for the program, and another bill allocates millions in the Energy Department budget specifically for pursuit of the new warhead.
A group of congressional Democrats introduced bills in the House and Senate this week that would prohibit the Trump administration from following through on the low-yield submarine-launched nuke. As reported in The Hill, the congressmen made stirring and sensible comments in support of the small nuke ban. For instance, California Rep. Ted Lieu said, “There’s no such thing as a low-yield nuclear war. Use of any nuclear weapon, regardless of its killing power, could be catastrophically destabilizing. It opens the door for severe miscalculation and could drag the US and our allies into a devastating nuclear conflict.”
Lieu and his colleagues (and the many military leaders who oppose, for all sorts of intelligent reasons, a sub-launched mini-nuke) are right. Just the same, there is essentially zero chance the bill banning that low-yield warhead will even be considered in the current Republican-controlled Congress. But politics change over time. It would be good for the country and the world if major news media focused prominently on the extreme danger this low-yield nuclear warhead program poses. The risk of that program is not theoretical, and the result, if such weapons are developed and fielded, could be truly catastrophic. The more people become aware of the threat that mini-nukes pose to them, their children, and the planet, the more likely that this mistaken program can be defunded and put back on the shelf of bad ideas, where it belongs and should stay.
The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent, nonprofit media organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important. In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.
View Comments
Mini-nukes show up the limitations of Deterrence doctrine, a strategy for the Cold War not the crisis we are in now. It is arguable that Deterrence worked in the period 1945-1991: but not today. We are living in an increasingly unstable world. The theory can no longer prevent the scenarios where Mutual Assured Destruction will be resorted to. We will soon face the scenario that (unlike the Cuban missile crisis) one protagonist will not be able to step back from the brink, blindly stumbling into a situation they cannot de-escalate. Syria is an example of how close we are.
Yet military theory is not the cause of war. The cause is to be found in the past. The pattern of history is clear. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict throughout history – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not power.
Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics - everything. We unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is power, not any of the above concepts, that is the cause of war.
It is the one thing we will destroy ourselves for, as well as everyone else. When core interests are threatened and existential threat looms nations go to war. There can be no compromise on these. As a result every civilization/nation eventually gets the war it is trying to avoid: utter defeat. This applies as much today as any other time in history. Leaders and decision-makers delude themselves, thinking they can avoid their fate – they can’t. If survival is threatened, there is no alternative to war, however destructive. All that is left is Deterrence’s fall-back position – annihilation.
http://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Not just that the smaller warheads increase likelihood of their use, but that they become practical for sabatoge
If the US makes mini nuclear warheads, other countries will make them too — also for submarines and planes, that can be lost at sea. And so the nightmare scenario of a terrorist with a "suitcase nuke" gets closer. This goes beyond the concern that "rational" nations might let a demagogue come to power who deludes the people into thinking they can win a tactical nuclear missile conflict. Like the famous movie line goes: "Some people just want to watch the world burn."
"...a demagogue come to power who deludes the people into thinking they can win a tactical nuclear missile conflict."
A demagogue like Ronald Reagan?
He thought a nuclear war was "winnable".
Doddering old fool that he was.