Dominant Logistics

Nukes in the Modern Era

A reader contacted me recently with a question I feel needs to be part of any modern discussion of military transformation:

I want to define things out a little bit better.

The MiniNuke Device

The warhead in question is actually much smaller than projected and this is why this particular weapon has been so contentious.  Awhile back, Congress banned the development of any warheads with a yield of less than 5 kilotons because they believed these smaller weapons were too "useable" and shouldn't be available.  What has been proposed is a mini or micro nuke design that actually takes the yield down to less than one kiloton, according to the sources I have been following.  A device of 5Kt or greater would not require approval to develop so there would be no great debate if this device were of the size you mention.

Now then, should a mini-nuke design be developed and fielded?  I have no hesitation in answering yes to that specific question.  The Congressional ban is not only insane, illogical, and unethical, its legality is questionable as well.  The bottom line on this particular segment of the issue is that it is United States military doctrine to respond in kind to attacks involving WMDs - without mini-nukes, it is quite literally impossible to do this in any real sense of the phrase.

During the 90s, the Bush and Clinton administrations ordered the destruction of the entire U.S. tactical nuclear arsenal.  Now, there is some question as to how completely this was carried out.  In particular, I have yet to see any definitive verification that all of the Special Atomic Demolition Munitions have been dismantled (the backpack nukes).   I have seen reports that all other tactical nukes are gone but I've never seen the SADM be officially declared gone, and since this is a SpecOps device, its existence may be classified as many things with SpecOps are. 

With the tactical nukes gone, the smallest we can go is to use the dial-a-yield feature on our best nukes, which allows us to take the yield all the way down to about 300tons.   Now, this is about where the yield should be for a good mininuke design, but it is also a waste of a strategic asset.  I personally am a big fan of the ideas floating around about slashing the nuclear arsenal down to about 1500 warheads but if we're to rely on these to also serve as a tactical round, this wouldn't be sufficient for long term defense.  There are also size and weight issues that would limit this warhead from the roles in which it would best serve.

Roles for Mininukes

The best role out there for a mininuke is as a warhead on anti-missile systems.  The Russians have been using this concept for decades and at one time, the United States had the capability as well.  Ideally, this approach would use a mininuke on a missile that would detonate outside the atmosphere in the immediate vicinity of incoming warheads.   Basically, this takes the near-miss problem out of the anti-missile system as it only needs to get close in order to kill an incoming round.  This also guarantees the destruction of the incoming payload, something that isn't guaranteed with current missile defense concepts.

A potential secondary role, that would only be valid for extreme circumstances is as a warhead for counter-WMD roles.  For example, if deployed U.S. forces were attacked with chemical or biological agents, the mininuke could be used in retaliation, even against terrorist groups as their yields would be so low that collateral effects would be minimal.  If our forces are attacked with WMDs, the President needs to have options other than murdering millions of innocent people and triggering a global conflagration.

Now, about that bunker buster nonsense.  Simply put, the conventional options for taking out bunkers are better than anything nuclear that can currently be designed and built.  Nukes are not well suited to piercing-type roles because of the electronics that make them work - there's only so much shock they can take and still function.   Some have talked of an auger-type arrangement but this is just plain silly as it would never work in most terrains.  There are much better concepts, particularly the Meteor Bomb concept for serving in this role (making a really, really, really big conventional bomb specifically designed for penetration using tremendous weight and exotic materials like DU and tungsten).

Strategic Doctrine & Actual Threats

The only people in this world who honestly believe our existing nuclear arsenal is detering anybody on the planet are those who haven't fully thought the issue through and those who are absolute morons.  The bottom line is this - no President that is not certifiably insane would ever push that button with the devices in our current arsenal.   This arsenal was designed for a Cold War that is long over.  The problem is that we live in a world where real threats, including nuclear threats, still exist.

The most dangerous threat posed to the United States comes from the current nuclear arsenal of Russia.  While Russia wouldn't nuke us (at least not without a really ugly political coup), as long as they have those warheads, accidents and mistakes can potentially happen, and frankly most of Russia's warheads are a lot bigger in yield than our own - one accident or mistake could literally wipe out millions of Americans.   For that matter, even terrorists could seize control of a mobile launcher and pull it off.  THIS is why missile defense is so critical now and for the near future.

Another situation to consider would be a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.  Let's say that we considered an invasion imminent and moved forces into the area.  The Chinese respond by nuking a carrier as well as Diego Garcia.  How do you honestly feel we would respond to this?  How COULD we respond to it?  Nuke China?  Ain't gonna happen without a President getting impeached and probably imprisoned for war crimes and mass murder of millions of innocents.  There's no current way to respond to this, and even if we did, how does this not escalate into a full scale nuclear exchange killing millions of Americans?

How about terrorists using a nuke and us being able to trace it to a nation like Iran or Korea?  What do we do then - murder the civilians who had nothing to do with the act and don't even support those who did?  A mininuke would give us an option but the weapons in our current arsenal are useless in these real world scenarios.

There are those who oppose developing these small nukes because they would be "too useable" and they don't want nukes used unless absolutely necessary.  I'm not unsympathetic to this arguement with one exception - if you don't back developing new nukes to deal with the new threats in this world, then you need to be pushing for eliminating our nuke arsenal altogether.  Other than burning money we don't have, our existing nuke arsenal serves no legitimate purpose in the modern world.  Even without nukes, we can kick the crap out of just about any nation on the planet and it is nearly impossible for any other nation to attack us.  Fielding a quality missile defense would make us invulnerable to anything other than terrorism.

If we don't want other nations to develop nuclear weapons, then perhaps we should set an example by getting rid of our own.  After all, how much money are we spending for the purposes of limiting collateral damage from conventional weapons?  Nukes hardly fit into this equation.  If we are desiring a claim to the moral high ground, the arsenal has to go.  Our nuke infrastructure can be converted to civilian purposes very easily and the materials burned as reactor fuel for generating power.

In the end, we have only two options:  Dump nukes altogether, or develop new, smaller nukes that are consistent with our efforts to reduce lethality to innocents.   Anything other than these two options should be disregarded altogether.  The status quo is a luxury we cannot afford.

Dominant Logistics Home     ||     Supporting Articles