Low Yield Nuclear Weapons

JavaFox

I'm watching live coverage of the US Senate on C-SPAN right now and there is debate going on concerning "low yield nuclear weapons." The United States has a self-imposed ban on such weaponry (we are the only nation with such a restriction; it does not exist in Russia, China, the UK, France, or others).

The rationale is that low yield (that is, those with explosive capabilities lower than 5 kilotons) nuclear weapons can function as a deterrent, can destroy WMD caches, and can bust bunkers. The case regarding WMD makes sense. If you know where a stash of sarin is, for example, blowing it up with a conventional bomb probably would only spread it around. On the other hand, a small nuclear bomb would vaporize it. And bunkers have been increasingly harder to break, and have been built deeper and deeper. Now, there is nobody that thinks the US will use one of its big nukes any time soon -- who really believes that the US would have used one of its multi-megaton nuclear bombs to wipe out millions of Iraqis in Baghdad? Maybe it makes sense to have low-yield, precision nuclear bombs as a credible threat, and get rid of many of our bigger bombs.

Those things said, using a nuclear bomb to break a bunker seems like absolute lunacy to me. Would we ever want to use a nuclear bomb in battle? I don't think so. Should we even explore low yield weaponry? Could developing these weapons kick off a new low yield arms race, as some critics claim?

It's an interesting debate, and neither side has fully convinced me yet. Anyone have level-headed comments to add to this debate?

ToshiroOC

I don't have much time right now to write a response, but in short I feel that "low yield" weapons are a ridiculous waste of money and very dangerous in both the short term and the long term. In the short term, using nuclear bombs, even low yield ones, will lend acceptability and remove a lot of the stigma around nuclear bombs, and may even encourage "tactical" use of nuclear weaponry (Think Pakistan and India), and in the long term they will simply cause severe radiation pollution at the target site. Also, I would argue that the words "precision" and "nuclear" used for the same bomb are a complete oxymoron - they are inherently indiscriminate weapons, and no amount of precision will change the fact that they are massive weapons of destruction that cannot be used "precisely" against any reasonably sized target (and if we're targeting a target big enough to be completely encompassed by a 5kt bomb, then I think we have better options than nuking em).

JavaFox

What you've said is conventionally true, but the entire point in developing these weapons is to make precision nuclear bombs. The argument is that nuclear bombs, by their nature, have very special uses. This is true. Like I mentioned earlier, if intelligence indicated that there was a stash of, say, sarin somewhere, you wouldn't be able to drop a daisy cutter on it -- that would just spread it around. A nuclear blast, on the other hand, could vaporize it. The point of low yield weaponry is to get the benefits of nuclear weapon (ability to vaporize targets, ability to destroy deep bunkers, etc.) without the mass death and destruction that a conventional nuclear bomb would entail.

That said, you're certainly right about the stigma, and legitimizing the use of nuclear weapons in the eyes of the world is extremely dangerous. Certainly the US should be at the forefront of denuclearizing the world, and I think we have been. But intelligent and moral agreements like the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty really hasn't done much as far as rogue states are concerned. Did those agreements prevent North Korea from developing (and threatening to use) nuclear weapons? Did they prevent Iran from going forth with its nuclear program? Did Iraq respond to such agreements (pre-Gulf War, Iraq had an advanced nuclear program)? Your point is well-taken, but the stigma of nuclear weapons hasn't prevented nations from making nukes, has it?

The_Neon_Cowboy

HAHAHAHAHA.......... um We have LOW YELD Nukes!!!!!!!!!! Thier called tatical nukes! for use in the battle field .....thier of varying yelds but we DO have them! Congress even ok'd thier use in afganistan if we found a bunker we thought osama was in!!!!!!!!!! They do exist here ... mabe it a matter of who knows thier here ...

BWX

Aren't we using depleted uranium rounds now anyway? I know it' so not the same as a nuke- but they are "nuclear"- I heard that we used them in Iraq on the news, there wasn't much coverage on it- but I saw it.

JavaFox

No matter what the critics tell you, DU (depleted uranium) weapons never have been --and never will be-- considered nuclear weapons. They are a conventional ordinance. The radiation they emit is negligible (this is what is meant be "depleted"), and nearly every major organization --including the United Nations-- has concluded that they pose no serious radiation-related health risk.

We used them in Kosovo extensively, and in the first Gulf War as well. I don't know if we used them in the recent battle with Iraq --it wouldn't surprise me-- but it's really a nonissue.

Uranium is DENSE, and that is why it, in its depleted form, is used to burst tanks and other hard targets. Not for any other reason.

merry

Andrey Sacharov was a Soviet top physicist, creator of the H bomb in the fifties. He lived in a secret city, pretty isolated from the rest of the world... but still started thinking of the secondary effects of testing nuclear weapons. This was done in remote areas, but radioactive particles were spread in the atmosphere - he came to the conclusion that testing NW statistically increased the chance of a person dying of cancer anywhere in the world, like someone dying in Australia 10 years after a nuclear test in Siberia.

In his memoires, this concern appears to be the first factor that "turned him around" - after a few yers he became the most well known dissident in the USSR, being granted the Nobel prize for Peace - again, this is the creator of the H bomb.

He must have been really impressed of the secondary effects of nuclear weapons, and he sure was in a position to know.

I personally don't think that the price of a LYNW blast is worth paying. One can argue that this or that situation (sarin etc.) would be solved only by these means. Still, I don't think that the person that has the decision should have the means of going the easy way - whenever human life is at stake. Of course, the prospective of getting cancer is hypothetical (maybe it won't be me, maybe it will be you), but the necessity of using any form of NW is even more hypothetical.

JavaFox

Well, let's not forget that Nobel himself is best known for inventing TNT.

That said, I thought the perspective and view that you contributed was top-notch and very insightful. As I said earlier, I am not completely swayed by either side in this debate. On one hand you can see how these weapons could be useful, but on the other, using a nuke for any purpose is going to be a serious decision. I don't think that the development of such weaponry is inherently bad (the US should never, ever stop honing its military capabilities), but the use of them would be disastrous. The US should be an example to the world, and if it were to start lobbing these "weak" nukes around, it could legitimize their use.

And make no mistake about it -- I don't think these things would be developed just for their deterrent effect. Big nukes are deterrent enough, I feel. There might be a deterrent effect to maintaining an arsenal of these small nukes, but then again, would you make a small nuke if you didn't intend to use it? I try to not think emotionally about this sort of thing, but the fact that smaller nukes would probably get used is something I can't shake.

Falstaff

I would agree with an earlier statement that the kiloton yield in weapons is almost moot in regard to the destruction of a target or deterence.

There are many different ways to build a nuclear weapon, the physics package or warhead can be modified to produce more blast than thermal or vice or versa. Most are familiar with the old style weapons and the method of delivering these weapons hasn't changed much..

Just sitting in Bunkers in Seal Beach Ca., Hawthorne Ne. North Island Ca. or in silos and tubes in the hulls of submarines, they provide effective deterence in my opinion against the imminent threat. and flesh out the nuclear arsenal we possess, at least on paper. Our older delivery systems have been destroyed or retired, but most the remaining units can be mated to new delivery systems. We still possess a great number of ballistic rounds for large cannon. At the Dahlgren gun lab, barrels lie in wieght for turrets on ships that have since been mothballed. I served on an IOWA class battleship, and her weaponry is sound and inexpensive to operate. My ship could send a low yield nuke 26 miles inland from the sea, this technology is from the fifties and the sixties of course.

I agree with the remark about depleted uranium rounds, they pose a low risk from handling, we have used them in battle now for over 20 years, they represent a hazard if mishandled but they are not fissionable. Our CIWS, or close in support weapons systems were always armed with belts of these rounds and they pack quite a punch. During the gulf war, a U.S. Navy ship, responding to a cruise missle attack on my ship, fired over a hundred rounds at us. Each single depleted uranium round penetrated and most passed through the entire skin of the ship, without killing anyone thankgod, now that is dense!

Because of the kind of work I did in the Navy, I had to become a Radiation Health Officer and graduate from Nuclear power school. The instructors and staff hammered into our brains the caution and care people must exercise to remain free of hazards from exposure. I wore a device that measure my exposure and was surprised after 6 years of constant exposure that I had exceeded my lifetime equivalent dose three times over, and yet I show no ill effect, it is just that the margin for safety is so high. Most of my exposure wasn't from the reactor, but from walking through Sherwood Forest, an area of the hull where all the missle tubes are mounted. If we had Harpoons with physic's packages, then it became more problematic, everyone gets exposed regardless, we just monitor the leve of exposure.

Whether we accept it or not, there are more "low yield weapons" now than their have ever been. It is easy modify a missle with a 50 kilo warhead, send it unguided into any direction and achieve massive destruction. The weapons used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima might be considered low yield now. They were heavy because they were overdesigned and crude by todays standards.

Could someone build an efficient low yield weapon today from stolen fissionable material? yes it is theoretically possible, at tremedous risk to the builder and anyone launching or dropping it. One scenerio that always scared me was someone taking an old warhead, burying it somewhere...for years of course. building a city around it, or over it. then when a situation becomes desperate, exploding it with dire consequences to the city and the invader.

We tested some low yield weapons during the 1950's and up until now, so did the Australians and Chinese, etc, And we performed experiements with low yield in the deserts of Nevada too, all underground. I served at test facility not far from low yield underground testing areas. They are still hot today. Our vaunted Tomohawk missles were designed with this in mind from the beginning. Wipe out a surface battle group with two of them on the open sea, We always carry a few around just in case something happens, just like the B-52's that still lie in wait for a possible attack.

My fear is that fuel rods from breeder reactors in former soviet republics could be used to build low yield weapons, that type of reactor can also turn out good quality fissionable material. So when the soviets build reactors for people or provide guidance and help, I always narrow my focus a little, knowing full well that it could be used for other purposes.

How do I feel about low yield nukes? They are more dangerous than conventional high yield weapons, and there are many more of them, despite what you might read in the news. I use the Cockroach theory, and it means that if you see one, hear one, or know of one, then there are probably hundreds or tens of hundreds lying in wait for use. I cannot provide an accurate number since I was never privileged to know that information, but based on the work I did, I can safely say their are more now than say 12 years ago, and their development have run parallel to the development of "smart" weapon delivery systems.

That is why we fear WMD now, it has become more economical to build them, deploy them, hide them and if necessary use them, either in submerged, surface, or airborne platforms.

Falstaff