• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senators Signal Resistance to Proposed Low-Yield Nukes

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,313
Reaction score
82,698
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Senators Signal Resistance to Proposed Low-Yield Nukes

defense-large.jpg


March 21, 2018

Two of the latest Nuclear Posture Review’s most headline-grabbing proposals — to develop a lower-yield ballistic-missile warhead and a new submarine-launched cruise missile — are running into resistance in a key Senate committee. Several Democratic senators on the Armed Services Committee, which would have to approve the new weapons’ development, expressed concerns. The Pentagon says they’re necessary to deter Russia from using its own low-yield nukes to win an otherwise conventional war. The argument goes that the U.S. would then either be forced to escalate with higher-yield missiles, or concede. Ranking member Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., , isn’t convinced the solution is more low-yield nukes on the American side. “While I agree with much of the NPR, I have concerns about the low-yield submarine launched warhead,” he said in opening remarks at an Armed Service Committee hearing Tuesday. “The Russian doctrine of ‘escalate-to-deescalate’ could easily spin out of control if our response to their low-yield weapon is to use a similar one; which could escalate into an exchange of larger weapons.” He reiterated the same point in questions later.

The U.S. already has two possible low-yield options in its arsenal — an air-launched cruise missile and the B-61 gravity bomb — but the Pentagon is concerned the two might not be able to reach their targets in a conflict. Even if the planned triad modernization creates capabilities that can penetrate areas of Russian air denial, Gen. John Hyten, who leads U.S. Strategic Command, told lawmakers at Tuesday’s hearing that it’s necessary to have multiple options, much like the U.S. maintains the three legs of the triad to counter each aspect of potential adversaries’ nuclear forces. Beyond the policy debate, there’s currently a procedural gap preventing the development from moving ahead. Current U.S. law requires the Energy Department to request Congressional authorization and appropriations for the development of any new or modified nuclear weapons. That includes the ones proposed in the NPR, Hyten said. The Pentagon asked for some $22 million in its 2019 budget request to begin developing the new weapons, checking the appropriations box, but the Energy Department didn’t request the accompanying authorization in its own submission. Hyten, who oversees the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal, said he expects that “will come in a fairly timely way.” “The Nuclear Weapons Council and I have talked to the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of Energy is working with them. I think they’ll have an approach to come look for authorization,” he told lawmakers.

Low-yield nukes are problematic. On the one hand you want the capability to match any enemy nuclear options. On the other hand, low-yield nukes could be a tempting option in certain tactical scenarios.
 
Senators Signal Resistance to Proposed Low-Yield Nukes

defense-large.jpg




Low-yield nukes are problematic. On the one hand you want the capability to match any enemy nuclear options. On the other hand, low-yield nukes could be a tempting option in certain tactical scenarios.

Sooner or later someone somewhere is going to push the nuclear button and destroy a large part of modern civilization, killing perhaps a couple of billion people. It really doesn't look as if mankind has the wit and the will to rid the world of those terrible weapons, so the threat will simply continue to grow until it can no longer be stopped. RIP the modern world. Perhaps the survivors will be able to rebuild and at long last have a world without war, but that seems unlikely given the history of man.
 
Senators Signal Resistance to Proposed Low-Yield Nukes

defense-large.jpg




Low-yield nukes are problematic. On the one hand you want the capability to match any enemy nuclear options. On the other hand, low-yield nukes could be a tempting option in certain tactical scenarios.

How could it be tempting when the adversary has deterrent. When you set a precedent for the world beyond WWII which was unprecedented and required the cost?
 
Sooner or later someone somewhere is going to push the nuclear button and destroy a large part of modern civilization, killing perhaps a couple of billion people. It really doesn't look as if mankind has the wit and the will to rid the world of those terrible weapons, so the threat will simply continue to grow until it can no longer be stopped. RIP the modern world. Perhaps the survivors will be able to rebuild and at long last have a world without war, but that seems unlikely given the history of man.

I know a planet that ended in nuclear war, they all got thrown in a lake of fire that was upturned periodically to let some souls out at the bottom and then some out at the top and the king got stuck in the middle and by the time he got out on the next planet all it's resources had been used up in war and there was nothing left of which to build a kingdom.
 
Senators Signal Resistance to Proposed Low-Yield Nukes

defense-large.jpg




Low-yield nukes are problematic. On the one hand you want the capability to match any enemy nuclear options. On the other hand, low-yield nukes could be a tempting option in certain tactical scenarios.

Russia has them. Their argument being that a low yield nuke doesn’t cross the threshold for a full on nuclear war. At this point high yield is all we have. Low yield gives you more threat options.

We can’t use ours because they are too big, yet they can. Or at least threaten us with them and we are left with no answer, thus the Russkies have a strategic advantage.
 
Russia has them. Their argument being that a low yield nuke doesn’t cross the threshold for a full on nuclear war. At this point high yield is all we have. Low yield gives you more threat options.

The US mothballed its low-yield nuclear weapons (like nuclear artillery shells). But the blueprints are easily available.

Now the Pentagon is looking at acquiring low-yield sea-launched and cruise-missile tactical nuclear weapons. Low-yield makes their use more likely.
 
The US mothballed its low-yield nuclear weapons (like nuclear artillery shells). But the blueprints are easily available.

Now the Pentagon is looking at acquiring low-yield sea-launched and cruise-missile tactical nuclear weapons. Low-yield makes their use more likely.

We need to have the same size rocks as the other guy.
 
The US mothballed its low-yield nuclear weapons (like nuclear artillery shells).

They weren't "mothballed" they were totally disassembled.

The three existing variable yield warheads can be configured to 0.3 kt.
 
Senators Signal Resistance to Proposed Low-Yield Nukes

defense-large.jpg




Low-yield nukes are problematic. On the one hand you want the capability to match any enemy nuclear options. On the other hand, low-yield nukes could be a tempting option in certain tactical scenarios.



A nuke is a nuke. Some years ago --- the nuclear strategy of the United States changed and Nuclear weapons were taken off of submarines. I disagree with taking nukes off of subs.

LOW GRADE nukes is the same pretty much a large conventional warhead ; so why spend the money on a low grade ( warhead - missile deployed ) warhead......when a conventional warhead will do the same thing but minus the fall out and radiation.


Backpack nukes have a purpose --- but that purpose is limited in my assessment. In any event --- there is a HUGE downfall to the deployment of Nuclear Warheads.





Major Lambda
 
Some years ago --- the nuclear strategy of the United States changed and Nuclear weapons were taken off of submarines. I disagree with taking nukes off of subs.

What? The US currently has 14 SSBN nuclear armed Ohio Class submarines (4 others are Tomahawk SSGN missile subs). These are the sea component of the US nuclear triad. 24 x Trident I/II MIRVed nuclear warheads.

The Columbia Class SSBN-X is in the R&D phase with construction scheduled for 2021.
 
Back
Top Bottom