Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Mini-Nukes or Those Little Bundles of "Instant Sunshine"



I first heard the term "instant sunshine" on some NATO base in Europe in the mid-70s. It was a slang reference to the bevy of tactical nuclear weapons, bombs or missiles, even a few artillery shells, deployed to destroy or at least delay a horde of Soviet and Warsaw Pact tanks pouring into Western Europe via the Fulda Gap.  These were small, sub-Hiroshima-grade mini-nukes to be dropped wherever the bad guys could be forced to concentrate.

Those tactical nuclear weapons weren't "war winners." Their man purpose was to pause an invasion for a day or two to allow the leaders in Moscow and Washington  to cool off. They were buying time that, it was hoped, would prevent Armageddon, a massive exchange of strategic nuclear weapons, the Dr. Strangelove stuff.

Some critics saw them as "gateway bombs" that would forever break the taboo on nuclear warfare. They argued that, once you use the small nukes, you've lowered the threshold for an all out, civilization-ending nuclear exchange. Fortunately that hypothesis never got tested.

The Soviet Union is gone. The Warsaw Pact is gone. NATO keeps busy with "make work projects" in Afghanistan or bolstering the Baltic democracies against Putin. However of late there's been renewed interest in a new generation of mini-nukes.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the group that just moved the Doomsday Clock to 100-seconds before midnight, warns that Trump is changing the paradigm on the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are widely seen as bombs built never to be used. Historically, granular—even seemingly mundane—decisions about force structure, research efforts, or communicated strategy have confounded planners, sometimes causing the opposite of the intended effect. 
Such is the risk carried by one strategy change that has earned top billing under the Trump administration: the deployment of a new “low-yield” nuclear weapon on US submarines. 
Low-yield, high risk. The Trump administration first announced its plans for a new low-yield nuclear warhead in its February 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, a public report meant to communicate and clarify various American nuclear weapons policies. The Nuclear Posture Review presented the lower-strength warhead as necessary for the “preservation of credible deterrence against regional aggression.” In other words, the United States was seeking a new, intermediate option for an imagined scenario in which Russia, after starting a conventional war in Europe, might be tempted to use smaller nuclear weapons first in order to win the conflict. In such a scenario, US thinking goes, the threat of US retaliation with full-strength bombs would not be believable and would not be enough to deter Russia from pursuing such a course in the first place. The way to deter a limited nuclear strike by Russia was for the United States to have a readily available option for retaliating with a limited, proportional strike of its own.
The Atomic Scientists argue this is a bad idea for a bunch of reasons. For starters, there are few tactical targets that can't be easily taken out with conventional weapons. When you do launch a missile with a nuclear warhead it can be difficult, in some cases impossible, for the other side to discern whether it's a mini-nuke or a strategic nuclear attack and they've only got a few minutes to decide what nuke is coming and how to respond.

Perhaps the most worrisome issue is Trump's stated willingness to use tactical nukes for a first-strike attack on countries such as Iran that pose no immediate threat to the United States.
Critics worry that military planners will be tempted to use the low-yield warhead not for deterrence, but for a first strike. Such concerns were initially dismissed out of hand, but recent news coverage gives them more credibility. 
Reporting by Newsweek in January 2020 revealed that in 2016 the United States held a wargame featuring the Air Force’s B61 nuclear bomb—another weapon with a low-yield option—in an imagined battlefield situation against Iran. Despite signing a landmark nonproliferation agreement with Iran the previous year, the Obama administration saw fit to train its command and control systems for a nuclear attack against a non-nuclear state. Officers speaking on the record to Newsweek about the exercise even identified the W76-2 as an imagined first-strike option for such a scenario, suggesting that its deployment is “explicitly intended to make the threat of such an attack more credible.”
What we learned in the Cold War and ever since is that nuclear weapons are a "confidence game." You need your adversary to be confident that you won't launch a surprise attack. You want your adversary to trust you. This has already prevented more than one global nuclear exchange when a computer went wrong or there was confusion in missile detection systems. There's a great premium for everyone in maintaining a reasonably high threshold on the use of nuclear weapons. Likewise there's a real danger when you lower your nuclear threshold and undermine your adversary's confidence level. And, who is more likely to undermine that confidence, than America's own lunatic-in-chief, Donald J. Trump?

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, in my opinion, it is completely unlikely that Russia would attack first. You'd have to be a paranoid delusional to want to do that, and the only country full of dopes like that is the USA. So of course Trump wants his micro-nukes and the Space Force. Americans fear everything, if you believe the BS they put out. The population thinks they're living in heaven on Earth, and that everywhere else is a rathole.

I have a lifetime friend with brains living in rural coastal Oregon, ever since the late '70s. She says Portland's downtown is defaced with human feces from the tens of thousands of homeless and sections of Seattle are no better.

You wonder when the US will ever wake up and look after its own people rather than spending 50% of its budget on the military to serve its business class at home and abroad, the biggest socialist giveaway in the world. Try telling them that, and the dopes think they're protecting themselves from barbarians intent on stealing their birthright, and illegal immigration from Central America just proves people are trying to get into paradise.

BM

Trailblazer said...

Our, the worlds, problem is that Trump will stop at nothing to keep himself from either prosecution or power.
His main ally is the religious right who have high hopes of Armageddon being real!
If this wish requires the use of tactical nukes I doubt they would think twice about their use, and neither would Trump.

The USA has the most nuclear missiles in the world.

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_ofthe_United_States_

As an afterthought .
The US religious right could well think a nuclear war winnable and perhaps desirable.

TB



the salamander said...

.. been reading about such weaponry for quite a while.. 'tactical nuclear weapons' ..
Realistically the great tank battles are a thing of the past.. just as the huge 'set piece' naval battles are no more.. and trench warfare, long gone. Even aerial combat has changed drastically. And certainly electronic warfare is now a key strategy, just as 'over the horizon' launch of missiles and drone ops are taking over.

Tank warfare is problematic at best now. Armor piercing sabot rounds mean whichever tank fires first almost certainly wins. Scratch one tank and crew that got close to the scene via train or major roadways and massive complex supply trains. Tank killing hand held missile lauchers euchre tanks in crowded urban street to street turmoil. The majors, USA, Russia, China have Harpoon missiles from submerged subs, nuclear powered missile ships or mobile ground launchers. We all know well, what a drone can deliver with pinpoint accuracy. What strategy would it be to send a tank platoon into battle knowing targeted tactical nukes could selectively decimate them as well as any supporting ground troops ? Yes, tanks and ground troops.. (oops, 'contractors') are useful in dense urban mop up & occupation, though 'mop up' vs urban guerillas is a painful & costly task, and guaranteed to involve 'collateral damage'.

Canadians today should realize our puny collaboration within NATO is minor air to ground attack efforts that only have whatever unclear effect and only within the joint efforts of American, British, French, Australian coalition. We may as well be Switzerland West.. though a tad larger in terms of square miles of home territory which we cannot possibly patrol or protect on our own.. Do we need tactical nuclear weaponry ? What for ? To drop on boat people swarming ashore after climate disaster, factional wars or persecution ? Hell, we don't even have a strategy.. right now we're all about and all in on resource extraction & export.. and taxpayer $$ go to Big Energy subsidies.. Nation Building dontcha know !! Its THE ECONOMY stupid ! For 'the better good'

Northern PoV said...

"Despite signing a landmark nonproliferation agreement with Iran the previous year, the Obama administration saw fit to train its command and control systems for a nuclear attack against a non-nuclear state."

Obama surfaces again ... in an anti-tRump rant!

The Disaffected Lib said...

NPoV, you've given yourself away. An author no less.

I was involved in cleaning up the bankruptcy of a modestly successful novelist. It was a lack of investment acumen that did him in, not his writing.

The fellow had a thing for period novels which led him to accumulate a collection of antiquarian reference books and encyclopediae. Acquiring his library paled in cost to the expense of storing and maintaining the volumes. To a writer they were priceless. To the market at large they were worthless.

The Disaffected Lib said...

I expect you're right, BM. "America(ns) fear everything." It's a cultivated belief that keeps the military gravy train rolling. Trump is not the only one running around waving his dick. What sets him apart from his contemporaries is his mental infirmity.

The Disaffected Lib said...

TB, I believe Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in terms of warheads. Slightly more, slightly less, I'm not sure the distinction matters.

Nuclear thresholds, however, do matter a great deal. As I mentioned, nuclear politics is the ultimate confidence game. Unfortunately it's not the con-game Trump has mastered over his career.

The Disaffected Lib said...

Sal, I think the focus of tank warfare has evolved a fair bit since Kursk or Desert Storm. More nations today are designing, producing and fielding their own main battle tanks than ever before. And the numbers produced are still impressive.

It used to be that a tank had a 10-year shelf life before it was replaced by the next great thing. The Brits still have that "new model" system. The Americans, after building some 9.000 M1 and M1A1 tanks have gone for recycling/upgrading. Their 'next generation' tank is basically another upgraded M1.

The Americans seem to have rediscovered what they learned at such cost in Vietnam - you can blow shit up until your ears bleed but it doesn't mean much unless you can control territory which, roughly translated, means clear the hill top and then park a tank on it.

the salamander said...

.. Armoured Military Strategy - Tank Warfare - its an interesting argument to superficially 'game out' Mound. I've read a fair bit of historical, contemporary and near future 'war fiction'. I find the credible and brilliant authors have done extensive research.. and of course will also employ 'creative licence'. I have also read some factual explanations as to what such warfare entails.. other than employing small yield tactical nukes. But that's not hard to bolt on.. superficially.

We do know how 'Command' and the entire Chain of Command.. right down to the foot soldier in the trenches looked upon Mustard Gas. Do we know.. do we 'really know' how combatants will perform (follow orders.. even to their certain, even useless death) knowing they will 'win' nothing ?

What a can of worms.. re 'soldiering' or 'a career in the military'. Will the unenlisted corps plus their sarges, loots, majors & bird colonels board a highly radiated aircraft or sub? Encamp or traverse highly radiated territories? How about supply train ? Will military be expected to act as 'suicide bombers' ? En masse ? At what point does 'mutiny' raise its ugly head.. 'Tradition' haha.. into the Valley of Death rode the 500 Tankers.. On again, On Again .. Drove the 500

The other aspect, even radiation warfare excluded.. is the astonishing reality of Tank Warfare logistics and supply train. Never mind getting a Tank Company of 14 tanks into defensive position to support one of the tanks atop a hill. Logistics & Supply Train.. oh deary me. You don't just order tanks to light out for a confrontation of some sort. Roads & bridges have to strong and wide enough. The entire mobile supply train, infantry, scout platoons, engineers, bakers, mechanics, parts, fuel, comms, ammo, even air or artillery support to be dialed in and coordinated .. trains on tracks are used to transport tanks when covering long distance.. ie 100 - 250 miles or so.. and supply train is & must be 'attached' in the following 'rear'

OK.. now roll in tanks or supply train in the context of coming under directed accurste missile fire from afar.. OK.. roll in the context of tactical nukes as well.. ie anti-personnel weaponry and/or low yield nuke tactics to deny possession of certain areas to.. uh.. anyone !! In my nasty mind.. an effective tactic would be strategic missile delivered radiation aimed at base camps or other supply train locations.
--
A complete sidenote. I have been reading up on radioactive brine from Hydraulic Fracturing for oil or gas. The current rule of thumb is.. for every barrel of oil extracted, there are 10 barrels of brine. Almost invariably, the brine is radioactive in varying degrees. Common practice at the well site is storage of brine on site prior to trucking away for disposal. I don't need to tell you of all people that radioactivity is cumulative. Thus, low levels but constant exposure = dangerous levels, without exception. Just try to identify who is at risk !! Drillers, inspectors, brine truck drivers, anyone exposed to the brine, whether spread on roads in winter to control ice or to control dust in warm weather. Any pipes or brine storage used at the well or at a disposal site or during remediation.. are probably hit the most.. the half-life of such radioactive atoms ? 25,000 years ? Ergg.. shall we discuss the handling, use and end destination of 'depleted uranium ammunition' ?

The Disaffected Lib said...

Sal, part of soldiering is the acceptance of being sacrificed to achieve some tactical or strategic advantage. Sometimes soldiers are asked to volunteer for grim missions but they're often just sent to their doom either in a hopeless rearguard effort or some diversion. There's no army that promises not to use you to pay the butcher's bill.

Remember the Soviet submariners who entered the radiation-contaminated engine rooms to prevent disaster knowing full well they were going to their doom or the brave souls who responded initially to the Chernobyl catastrophe. Not all by any means but a good many military personnel will answer the call of duty. It's part of their pride, part of themselves. It is something that doesn't translate broadly into the civilian side.

Your preference is for 'missile delivered radiation.' That comes in two forms, dirty bombs or neutron bombs that were considered during the Carter years. Once again that lowers the nuclear threshold which serves to undermine the essential confidence that adversaries need to have in each other.

As for fracking that is indeed a nasty business. The radium transmission process seems now pretty clearly understood but it's nothing that those in high office, the 'money for nothing' cadre, can't and won't ignore.

The depleted uranium business, why hush your mouth. We only use that against the swarthy folks in distant lands. Besides, the Pentagon has funded plenty of studies demonstrating that the critics are howling mad.