Bush pushes "Mini-Nuke" Development

[Admiral Johnason]

All I can say is that the Russians beat the US this time. They had 50 suitcase nukes in this country before the end of the Cold War, but they weren't really powerful.

Got any proof of that bit of bull?

I remember hearing about the "Suitcase Nuke" on several documenteries. The CIA's website should have something on it.

[Nova Andromeda]

--In my opinion, the U.S. has lost the long term struggle with its recent change in policy. It is now clear that only having nukes and a real deterant to the U.S. will save you. In addition, the U.S. is giving every other nation extra excuses to develop its WMD tech. to counter the U.S. moves. The U.S. will find it much harder to dominate the rest of the world when they cannot bully everyone else.

[phongn]

--In my opinion, the U.S. has lost the long term struggle with its recent change in policy. It is now clear that only having nukes and a real deterant to the U.S. will save you. In addition, the U.S. is giving every other nation extra excuses to develop its WMD tech. to counter the U.S. moves. The U.S. will find it much harder to dominate the rest of the world when they cannot bully everyone else.

I was not aware that we bullied other nations via nuclear threat.

[phongn]

I remember hearing about the "Suitcase Nuke" on several documenteries. The CIA's website should have something on it.

There's a large leap from "hearing about the 'Suitcase Nuke' on several documentaries" and claiming that there were fifty 'suitcase nukes' inside CONUS.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

All I can say is that the Russians beat the US this time. They had 50 suitcase nukes in this country before the end of the Cold War, but they weren't really powerful.

Sure. And a few hundred nukes were lost and are now in the hands of terrorists. Along with a submarine.

[HemlockGrey]

Yep. The Russians controlled reality back then. You see, they called it the Matrix...

[Natorgator]

--In my opinion, the U.S. has lost the long term struggle with its recent change in policy. It is now clear that only having nukes and a real deterant to the U.S. will save you. In addition, the U.S. is giving every other nation extra excuses to develop its WMD tech. to counter the U.S. moves. The U.S. will find it much harder to dominate the rest of the world when they cannot bully everyone else.

I was not aware that we bullied other nations via nuclear threat.

I think he meant that we can't bully nations like North Korea since they have nukes/the capabilities to develop them, whereas we were able to do whatever we wanted to Iraq before we invaded.

[Exonerate]

IIRC, it was 48 suitcase nukes, each with a yield of less than 1kt.

It was on Nova too, which was presumably the same source Johnason got his.

[phongn]

I smell BS here, regardless of if it was on NOVA or the History Channel (of which the latter is hardly known for their accuracy). Something smells fishy.

[SirNitram]

I fully foresee America continuing it's flipflop of test ban treaties until they can make antimatter cheaply and safely enough for a bomb. Then they'll go 'sure, no more nukes' and build the next worst thing.

Logic and morality hath no sway over politics.

[Sea Skimmer]

I fully foresee America continuing it's flipflop of test ban treaties until they can make antimatter cheaply and safely enough for a bomb. Then they'll go 'sure, no more nukes' and build the next worst thing.

Logic and morality hath no sway over politics.

That’s right, much better to use the current 9-megaton option then develop something a few thousandths as large and use that.

[phongn]

I fully foresee America continuing it's flipflop of test ban treaties until they can make antimatter cheaply and safely enough for a bomb. Then they'll go 'sure, no more nukes' and build the next worst thing.

That’s right, much better to use the current 9-megaton option then develop something a few thousandths as large and use that.

All hail the mighty B53!

[Pendragon]

I fully foresee America continuing it's flipflop of test ban treaties until they can make antimatter cheaply and safely enough for a bomb. Then they'll go 'sure, no more nukes' and build the next worst thing.

Logic and morality hath no sway over politics.

That’s right, much better to use the current 9-megaton option then develop something a few thousandths as large and use that.

Well call me a peacemongering commiebastard, butcouldnt you just refrain from using any nukes? Is there actually some kind of crisis brewing you cant deal with using conventional weapons?

[Sea Skimmer]

Well call me a peacemongering commiebastard, butcouldnt you just refrain from using any nukes? Is there actually some kind of crisis brewing you cant deal with using conventional weapons?

If you bomb a biochemical stockpile with a conventional bomb you run a risk of the agent being released. The fireball of a nuclear blast does a quite good job of incinerating the threat. The current solutions to this problem don't work very well, especially if the agents are inside of a bunker. Small nuclear earth penatraitor are also wanted for killing other forms of bunkers. Building a structure that can repel even the 4000 pound GBU-28 is quite possibul and a number exist.

[SirNitram]

I fully foresee America continuing it's flipflop of test ban treaties until they can make antimatter cheaply and safely enough for a bomb. Then they'll go 'sure, no more nukes' and build the next worst thing.

Logic and morality hath no sway over politics.

That’s right, much better to use the current 9-megaton option then develop something a few thousandths as large and use that.

You did read the last line, right? Someone will undoutably want to try it, because this is Politics. No amount of logic can sway people here, not when they can perceive an idea.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well call me a peacemongering commiebastard, butcouldnt you just refrain from using any nukes? Is there actually some kind of crisis brewing you cant deal with using conventional weapons?

The only real objective problem with nukes this size and application is that political asshats will play the name game and because it says "nuclear" they'll use it as an excuse to make 10 MT city-busters.

[Vympel]

Sure. And a few hundred nukes were lost and are now in the hands of terrorists. Along with a submarine.

Someone's been reading too much Tom Clancy

[MKSheppard]

Someone's been reading too much Tom Clancy

No, too much Richard Marcinko. Supposedly, according to him, the USN
is missing at least one 80 foot long minisub or something,...

[Vercingetorix]

Thre real problem with tactical nukes is that using them does serious damage to the strong anti-nuclear norms that currently exist. There is currently such a strong prejudice against use of nuclear weapons that nobody who currently posesses them is willing to use them offensively. Both nations that have them legitimately and those that have them illegitimately know that massive international stigmatization and isolation would result if nukes were ever used in any form, or proliferated to groups, such as terrorist organizations, who might use them. However, if the global superpower started using nukes, some of the prejudice against their use would inevitably disappear, and other nations might increasingly view it as acceptable to use nukes for their own purposes. It would be very dangerous to encourage that sort of attitude.

[Sea Skimmer]

Thre real problem with tactical nukes is that using them does serious damage to the strong anti-nuclear norms that currently exist. There is currently such a strong prejudice against use of nuclear weapons that nobody who currently posesses them is willing to use them offensively. Both nations that have them legitimately and those that have them illegitimately know that massive international stigmatization and isolation would result if nukes were ever used in any form, or proliferated to groups, such as terrorist organizations, who might use them. However, if the global superpower started using nukes, some of the prejudice against their use would inevitably disappear, and other nations might increasingly view it as acceptable to use nukes for their own purposes. It would be very dangerous to encourage that sort of attitude.

True. However deterrence requires that the threat remain credible, even if it's unlikely to ever be used. If tinpot dictator #6 knows we can blow up his ultimate bunkers with the anthrax missiles he will be a bit less likely to threaten there use then if those bunkers are unassailable.

[Vercingetorix]

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has proven that the U.S. does not need tactical nukes to intimidate "tinpot dictators". We have shown ourselves willing to overthrow a regim that by the admission of our own intelligence agency, represents no clear threat to American lives, and as it turns out, may not have had any WMD's to begin with. In light of these facts, it seems a bit ridiculous to claim that tinpot dictator #6 is going to go around threatening anthrax attacks just because we don't have tactical nukes. The U.S. has far and away the most powerful conventional military on the planet, and to claim that it isn't sufficiently intimidating already is a bit silly.

[Sea Skimmer]

It is not a matter of intimidation, that simply doesn’t work on many people and powers, it is a matter of military effectiveness which. A giant unitary or incendiary bomb is not viable against very large bunkers and biochemical stockpiles.

[phongn]

Well call me a peacemongering commiebastard, butcouldnt you just refrain from using any nukes? Is there actually some kind of crisis brewing you cant deal with using conventional weapons?

The only real objective problem with nukes this size and application is that political asshats will play the name game and because it says "nuclear" they'll use it as an excuse to make 10 MT city-busters.

How about no. Counter-population strikes would involve sizable numbers of warheads in the hundred-kiloton range, not giant multi-megaton nukes which were reserved for killing hard targets.

[Illuminatus Primus]

How about no. Counter-population strikes would involve sizable numbers of warheads in the hundred-kiloton range, not giant multi-megaton nukes which were reserved for killing hard targets.

Hyperbole, friend.

I know the days of the high-end MT superbombs was already ending in the 1960s.

Average warhead now is what? 300 KT?

[phongn]

I know the days of the high-end MT superbombs was already ending in the 1960s.

Average warhead now is what? 300 KT?

IIRC, Minuteman III has a 300kT warhead.