Nuclear Weapons Policy

[Marc DuQuesne]

What would you think of a bill stating that the United States would never (again) make first use of nuclear weapons, but would reply to any nuclear attack by any nation state on any other as if it were an attack against the United States? Meaning that they get glassed and their neighbors get sick.

 

There is a discussion now about loaning nuclear weapons to other nations. I wonder if there is a need. I don't want there ever to be a nuclear war. I don't know if we can stop it, but I do know we can't stop war. So we should just make it clear to all that they don't even need to try to build nuclear weapons. There is no way to use them without ceasing to exist. Fight your wars with bullets and bombs.

 

There is still the problem of terrorism of course, and that will just get worse as time go's on. A nuclear bomb isn't really that hard to make. Mankind has built far more complex things. Won't be to many decades till a terrorist organization is able to put together the resources to do it. All we can do is make sure no nation state wants any part of it.

[pavonis]

Loaning nukes? Where'd you hear that? That would seem to go against the goal of preventing nuclear weapon proliferation.

 

Nuclear weapons are best used as threats, because most nukes are not nearly as destructive as Hollywood and the popular imagination would lead you to believe. There are conventional explosives that can match or exceed the yield of a small tactical nuclear weapon.

 

The scariest part of the nuclear weapon is the residual radiation. But if you don't die from the blast, then you've received a dose of radiation that will increase your chance of developing cancer. If you don't get radiation poisoning and die within a few weeks or months, then how would anyone know for certain you wouldn't have developed cancer anyway?

 

Terrorists are far more likely to buy nuclear weapons, or just nuclear material, than they are to make their own. A terrorist "suitcase nuke" isn't likely to kill that many people, since it would most likely be a conventional explosive that spreads radioactive material around. That's not a very terrorizing weapon. Psychologically, raising the odds of developing cancer in the enemy is probably not very satisfying. It's easier and cheaper to get lots of quick deaths and terrorized enemies with conventional weapons than with nuclear weapons.

[Marc DuQuesne]

I was referring primarily to the NATO Nuclear Sharing program. Basically the US allows other nations to host our nuclear weapons as a nuclear deterrent. US airmen maintain custody of the weapons until a state of war, thereby stepping around the non-proliferation treaties. Actually, though it seems counter intuitive, non-proliferation is one of the main arguments for the program. Without the program those nations might decide they need a nuclear weapons program of their own, and a few hundred bombs under the custody of our airmen is a much lower proliferation risk than all that infrastructure in all those nations. Current hosting nations include Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Turkey.

 

 

Nuclear weapons are best used as threats, because most nukes are not nearly as destructive as Hollywood and the popular imagination would lead you to believe. There are conventional explosives that can match or exceed the yield of a small tactical nuclear weapon.

I don't see what your point is. Sure you can make a nuclear bomb with a really small yield. You want to try and make a conventional bomb with a yield equal to 50,000,000 tons of TNT? I agree that the area effect of a nuclear blast is exaggerated in many cases, but it is pretty much impossible to sneak the destructive power of a Kiloton + range bomb into place unless it is non-conventional.

 

 

 

The scariest part of the nuclear weapon is the residual radiation. But if you don't die from the blast, then you've received a dose of radiation that will increase your chance of developing cancer. If you don't get radiation poisoning and die within a few weeks or months, then how would anyone know for certain you wouldn't have developed cancer anyway?

The scariest part of a nuclear weapon is the size of the package. You really can destroy most of a large city with one missile with MIRVs. The radiation is second on the list, but still a whole bunch scarier than you make it out to be. You can have received a lethal dose of radiation and not even know it for hours or days. It is not just cancer, radiation sickness is scary as hell.

 

 

Terrorists are far more likely to buy nuclear weapons, or just nuclear material, than they are to make their own. A terrorist "suitcase nuke" isn't likely to kill that many people, since it would most likely be a conventional explosive that spreads radioactive material around. That's not a very terrorizing weapon. Psychologically, raising the odds of developing cancer in the enemy is probably not very satisfying. It's easier and cheaper to get lots of quick deaths and terrorized enemies with conventional weapons than with nuclear weapons.

I think you are selling dirty bombs way short. There are a bunch of ways they could hurt you. Imagine a big dirty bomb in Manhattan. Consider it the best area denial weapon ever devised. Guaranteed to turn the most densely populated area on earth into a ghost town indefinitely. Imagine being stuck in one of those buildings after hearing a dirty bomb had gone off. Knowing that you can't see radiation. Not knowing if the building's ventilation systems already sucked it in and you are a dead man walking. Sounds plenty terrorizing to me. And that is if they don't get smart and hit a major drinking water supply or something.

[DANA-kin Skywalker]

As a general rule, I'm against announcing to the world (and thus our enemies) that the US will never make first use of nuclear weapons. Let our enemies think we just might use a couple against them, so they better not even think about getting their hands on one.

 

We cannot un-invent this terrible technology. We can scare the pants off irresponsible nations and organizations from getting any funny ideas about getting the first shot off.

 

The world has had enough problems with dealing with radiation from nuclear accidents in recent history. Radiation kills. It kills slowly and it kills your neighboring nations.

[pavonis]

I don't see what your point is. Sure you can make a nuclear bomb with a really small yield. You want to try and make a conventional bomb with a yield equal to 50,000,000 tons of TNT? I agree that the area effect of a nuclear blast is exaggerated in many cases, but it is pretty much impossible to sneak the destructive power of a Kiloton + range bomb into place unless it is non-conventional.

A 50 megaton bomb isn't a weapon. It's a pissing contest. The Tsar Bomba the Soviets tested was just an "ours is bigger than yours" demonstration.

 

The scariest part of a nuclear weapon is the size of the package. You really can destroy most of a large city with one missile with MIRVs. The radiation is second on the list, but still a whole bunch scarier than you make it out to be. You can have received a lethal dose of radiation and not even know it for hours or days. It is not just cancer, radiation sickness is scary as hell.

Meh. Once the people are killed, the rest of the destruction is wasted effort. A glassed city isn't more destroyed than one that's flattened.

 

Besides, radiation is either going to kill you relatively quickly (hours to days), or it'll take years. If it takes years to kill the victims, how do you count the casualties?

 

I think you are selling dirty bombs way short. There are a bunch of ways they could hurt you. Imagine a big dirty bomb in Manhattan. Consider it the best area denial weapon ever devised. Guaranteed to turn the most densely populated area on earth into a ghost town indefinitely. Imagine being stuck in one of those buildings after hearing a dirty bomb had gone off. Knowing that you can't see radiation. Not knowing if the building's ventilation systems already sucked it in and you are a dead man walking. Sounds plenty terrorizing to me. And that is if they don't get smart and hit a major drinking water supply or something.

Yeah, I think you're overselling dirty bombs. Try simulating one with Nukemap (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/).

 

It's good that people are scared of nuclear weapons, because they are powerful. But they're not necessarily world-ending powerful. Maybe that's worse - that a nuclear exchange could be survivable. That would make MAD an unworkable solution.

[Marc DuQuesne]

As a general rule, I'm against announcing to the world (and thus our enemies) that the US will never make first use of nuclear weapons. Let our enemies think we just might use a couple against them, so they better not even think about getting their hands on one.

 

We can do worse than nuke them. If they **** with us we can bring democracy to their country like we did for Iraq.

 

Seriously though, The US doesn't need nukes to seriously hurt any country on the planet. We don't have the edge we did 10-20 years ago by any means but we can still make our will known at any volume we wish in the short term. I don't think we need to have people scared we may nuke them.

 

There are multiple stories out of the cold war days of nuclear war nearly starting because the Russians thought we were launching a preemptive strike. I know the Russians would look very skeptically at a law passed by us untrustworthy Americans, but you know as well as I do that we are not going to launch first. So why not make it law?

[Marc DuQuesne]

 

Yeah, I think you're overselling dirty bombs. Try simulating one with Nukemap (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/).

 

I did as you said, didn't see a dirty bomb but the "Improvised HEU device - nuclear terrorism (10 kt)" gives you 103,000 dead and 213,430 injured with a ground burst in Brooklyn. Sounds positively terrifying to me.

[Guest]

We're still terrified by 9/11, so I don't get why you would say that nukes aren't a good option for terror.

 

If it scares people to a degree that is greater than the damage, that sounds like a major win for terrorists.

[Carrie Mathison]

No First Use is a policy idea that was debated back and forth a lot during the Cold War, but despite nuclear states claiming first use is still critical- the truth is, the whole debate became somewhat irrelevant with the invention of the SLBM. Since the SLBM guaranteed a retaliatory second strike (even if your entire country was destroyed), there was no longer the same deterrent effect from being able to launch a debilitating first strike (and as such, the SLBM is credited as being a major factor of ending the nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR).

 

Right now, the following nuclear states have operational SLBMs: the US, Russia, UK, France and China. India apparently has developed one (and a sub) that's supposed to come online relatively soon. North Korea claims to have one under development (LOL). Israel may have an SLBM (unclear). Pakistan has no SLBMs.

 

So really, what you're asking, is if there is a need for a formal first use deterrent capability against those states that cannot deliver a second strike via SLBMs. Those states are Israel (?), Pakistan, and North Korea. We can go through each one in turn:

 

-Israel. First off, we deep throat Israel so hard that balls are slapping chin. So I don't foresee us ever having a nuclear standoff. Much more likely that Israel first-strikes another Mid East nation, which is not necessarily against our own self-interest- even our "friends" in the area are countries that still take advantage of us when they can/sponsor terrorism (Saudi Arabia, etc), so would it really be the end of the world if they got nuked? In the rare case that Israel actually became our enemy, there could possibly be some first-use deterrent effect: I don't know that they have reliable second strike capability (they supposedly have an SLBM, but who knows), and their ability to project power is limited (allegedly the Jericho III ICBM can reach North America, but it's unlikely many (if any) are operational and I think the figures are a little exaggerated with them).

 

-Pakistan. Pakistan's delivery systems are pretty limited- they have some medium range missiles and bombs that can be equipped to F-16s or JF-17s that they bought from China. So theoretically, Pakistan is the country that most likely could be deterred by a first use policy. That being said, the most likely target in a Pakistani strike would be India (the whole reason Pakistan developed the weapons in the first place). If this happened, India would strike back, and I'm not really sure why the US would want to get involved in that. "Let them fight it out" sounds like the most prudent policy to me.

 

-North Korea. Despite North Korea's claims to the contrary, they do not have an actual SLBM, though they clearly are trying to develop one. That being said, even if they had a missile, I'm not sure what they would launch it from- most of their fleet consists of smaller subs or really old second-hand Soviet subs from the 1950s. North Korea does have maybe a dozen or so warheads that could be fitted to short range missiles. But here's the thing- the DMZ is already so militarized, I'm not sure adding an explicit first-use policy (or saying anything about it at all- setting a redline, going to no first use, etc.) to the mix would change things much. If North Korea was actually dumb enough to attack the South, while they could do some serious damage in the very immediate short term, it would quickly be over for them. Yes, they have a lot of manpower, but the problem is they are very poorly equipped and their logistics and support chains are awful. I was reading the other day that they could only sustain operations for a few days (maybe even less than that) before they ran out of things like fuel and food. And on top of that, outside of the US Forces, the South Korean forces are not only more numerous than you think (3 field armies- around ~500k men, about the size of the US Army), but they are very well equipped, trained and supplied. One example, North Korea has thousands of tanks, but most of them are WW2 era. Whereas South Korea has a couple thousand, all modern- the oldest are from the 80s, and several hundred are only a few years old. Another example, South Korea has an advanced air force of over 100+ F-16s, whereas NK has maybe a few dozen MiG 29s (assuming they're operational). Most of their air force are planes from the 50s. It would be a bloodbath, just absolute slaughter- and the thing is, behind closed doors, the North Korean leadership knows that. Sure, Kim Jong Un isn't going to say it in public to keep up appearances, but he knows this. So unless the regime is on a suicide mission (in which case a first use nuclear policy does little), there's no real reason to have it.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Good post CM. The only thing I can add is formal policies are kind of moot, anyway. There are all sorts of "unofficial" policies that are kept in the White House's back pocket, and the Pentagon plans for all kinds of contingencies (they plan for every world power, including current allies, as a potential enemy, and how to combat them). These policies are not broadcast to the world, in order to keep enemies of the US off balance. Once you start ruling out options, your enemies know what they can or can't do, and how to work against you. Even if the US doesn't strike first in practice, why does Iran, North Korea, or other potential adversaries need to know that we have an official policy stating we won't strike first? It helps them, and hurts the US.

[DANA-kin Skywalker]

Once you start ruling out options, your enemies know what they can or can't do, and how to work against you. Even if the US doesn't strike first in practice, why does Iran, North Korea, or other potential adversaries need to know that we have an official policy stating we won't strike first? It helps them, and hurts the US.

Exactly. This was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post. Don't let our enemies know what we will or will not do. That keeps us safer. Let them wonder if we will use them rather than tell them we won't.

[pavonis]

 

 

Yeah, I think you're overselling dirty bombs. Try simulating one with Nukemap (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/).

 

I did as you said, didn't see a dirty bomb but the "Improvised HEU device - nuclear terrorism (10 kt)" gives you 103,000 dead and 213,430 injured with a ground burst in Brooklyn. Sounds positively terrifying to me.

 

You missed "Crude nuclear terrorist weapon (100 t)" which is pretty small. I dropped one in Brooklyn, too, and there were 5190 fatalities, which is a 73% increase over 9/11. Basically, they're the same scale event.

 

My point is that nuclear weapons aren't as overwhelmingly scary as people generally believe. Possessing them is a deterrent. Deploying them isn't the goal. Telling our enemies that we won't use them first is not the same as saying we won't do something. Nuclear weapons can produce lots of casualties in one event, but so can conventional weapons nowadays. Are mass casualty events really the goal of American military strikes now? Aren't "surgical strikes" the preferred method for responding to threats? Besides, with the nuclear warhead material continually decaying, there is some question as to whether the older warheads will even perform as designed. The "poisons" that build up in the warhead from daughter products of the fissile material can cause the warhead to fizzle. Better to use a more reliable conventional explosive.

 

The unconventional weapons are what we should focus on when it comes to terrorism. Someday there may be a 10000+ fatalities event, but the only ways to do that would be to hit a location with that many people on a regular basis (say Times Square on New Year's Eve), or to spread a biological weapon that would work over a much longer period than a nuke, but be much more terrorizing because of that. If a terrorist group obtained a nuclear weapon and wanted to use it, they'd probably have to put it on a ship and sail it into a harbor, and detonate it while it was still aboard. The number of casualties might be a lot lower, but destroying a major port would still be devastating.

[Marc DuQuesne]

No First Use is a policy idea that was debated back and forth a lot during the Cold War, but despite nuclear states claiming first use is still critical- the truth is, the whole debate became somewhat irrelevant with the invention of the SLBM. Since the SLBM guaranteed a retaliatory second strike (even if your entire country was destroyed), there was no longer the same deterrent effect from being able to launch a debilitating first strike (and as such, the SLBM is credited as being a major factor of ending the nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR).

But that was mostly because the Russians were using liquid propellant at the time. With solid propellant rockets and good command and control you can still launch a counter strike before your silos are taken out. The Russians also like those mobile launchers, almost as good as a sub for protecting your nukes. Better maybe, now that I think about it. The US can stake an attack sub on those boomers in a lot of cases. They have to leave a harbor and we still have a massive edge in being able to detect enemy subs before they detect us. Hard to track a mobile launcher the same way, even with satellites. They can build 10 bunkers for each launcher and move them when the eyes aren't looking.

 

No First Use is a policy idea that was debated back and forth a lot during the Cold War, but despite nuclear states claiming first use is still critical- the truth is, the whole debate became somewhat irrelevant with the invention of the SLBM. Since the SLBM guaranteed a retaliatory second strike (even if your entire country was destroyed), there was no longer the same deterrent effect from being able to launch a debilitating first strike (and as such, the SLBM is credited as being a major factor of ending the nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR).

 

Right now, the following nuclear states have operational SLBMs: the US, Russia, UK, France and China. India apparently has developed one (and a sub) that's supposed to come online relatively soon. North Korea claims to have one under development (LOL). Israel may have an SLBM (unclear). Pakistan has no SLBMs.

 

So really, what you're asking, is if there is a need for a formal first use deterrent capability against those states that cannot deliver a second strike via SLBMs. Those states are Israel (?), Pakistan, and North Korea. We can go through each one in turn:

 

-Israel. First off, we deep throat Israel so hard that balls are slapping chin. So I don't foresee us ever having a nuclear standoff. Much more likely that Israel first-strikes another Mid East nation, which is not necessarily against our own self-interest- even our "friends" in the area are countries that still take advantage of us when they can/sponsor terrorism (Saudi Arabia, etc), so would it really be the end of the world if they got nuked? In the rare case that Israel actually became our enemy, there could possibly be some first-use deterrent effect: I don't know that they have reliable second strike capability (they supposedly have an SLBM, but who knows), and their ability to project power is limited (allegedly the Jericho III ICBM can reach North America, but it's unlikely many (if any) are operational and I think the figures are a little exaggerated with them).

 

-Pakistan. Pakistan's delivery systems are pretty limited- they have some medium range missiles and bombs that can be equipped to F-16s or JF-17s that they bought from China. So theoretically, Pakistan is the country that most likely could be deterred by a first use policy. That being said, the most likely target in a Pakistani strike would be India (the whole reason Pakistan developed the weapons in the first place). If this happened, India would strike back, and I'm not really sure why the US would want to get involved in that. "Let them fight it out" sounds like the most prudent policy to me.

 

-North Korea. Despite North Korea's claims to the contrary, they do not have an actual SLBM, though they clearly are trying to develop one. That being said, even if they had a missile, I'm not sure what they would launch it from- most of their fleet consists of smaller subs or really old second-hand Soviet subs from the 1950s. North Korea does have maybe a dozen or so warheads that could be fitted to short range missiles. But here's the thing- the DMZ is already so militarized, I'm not sure adding an explicit first-use policy (or saying anything about it at all- setting a redline, going to no first use, etc.) to the mix would change things much. If North Korea was actually dumb enough to attack the South, while they could do some serious damage in the very immediate short term, it would quickly be over for them. Yes, they have a lot of manpower, but the problem is they are very poorly equipped and their logistics and support chains are awful. I was reading the other day that they could only sustain operations for a few days (maybe even less than that) before they ran out of things like fuel and food. And on top of that, outside of the US Forces, the South Korean forces are not only more numerous than you think (3 field armies- around ~500k men, about the size of the US Army), but they are very well equipped, trained and supplied. One example, North Korea has thousands of tanks, but most of them are WW2 era. Whereas South Korea has a couple thousand, all modern- the oldest are from the 80s, and several hundred are only a few years old. Another example, South Korea has an advanced air force of over 100+ F-16s, whereas NK has maybe a few dozen MiG 29s (assuming they're operational). Most of their air force are planes from the 50s. It would be a bloodbath, just absolute slaughter- and the thing is, behind closed doors, the North Korean leadership knows that. Sure, Kim Jong Un isn't going to say it in public to keep up appearances, but he knows this. So unless the regime is on a suicide mission (in which case a first use nuclear policy does little), there's no real reason to have it.

I don't foresee a nuclear standoff with any other nation besides Russia, not in the cold war mold anyway. China maybe. If they decided to change their past stance. The have talked recently about putting their nuclear forces on "alert state" though. That would be a change from their past stance. They are getting just as froggy as Russia these days, I'm afraid they might be talking.

 

The biggest threat though is definitely Pakistan. They have that thing with India. They have the most political instability. They have the most bad characters in the immediate region, the ones that would see setting off a nuclear bomb in a western nation as the holy grail. They have the ISI...

 

Israel is never going to get that far on our wrong side.

 

NK is a joke. If war broke out between North Korea and South Korea it would be a really bloody affair. But after 12 hrs the result would never be in doubt. If NK did successfully launch a nuclear armed missile with range to hit the US, I bet we we shoot it down. I would be surprised if we didn't. Not as surprised as I would be to find out they had two that would fly though.

 

[Marc DuQuesne]

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/22-us-house-democrats-press-obama-to-adopt-no-first-use-nuclear-weapons-policy

 

I would like to see this done. I think it would free us to be more confrontational with Russia without them taking it as a mortal threat. War is an inevitability. Nuclear war isn't. If we make a no first use policy we can pimp slap Russia and China hard without as much risk of them panicking and pushing the button.

 

A no-first-use policy would minimize the need for "first strike” weapons, they argue in the letter, including the next-generation nuclear-armed cruise missile and intercontinental ballistic missiles, "which could generate significant cost savings and lead other nuclear-armed states to make similar calculations."

 

That part is a bit naive. If we make a policy which states we won't strike first we in turn must have a survivable nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. If we make a policy which guarantees the enemy a first strike we have to have enough weapons in secure storage that they can't risk it. Nuclear armed cruise missiles are a perfect weapon for retaliatory strikes. They can be stored easily without taking up a lot of space. They can be launched from a wide variety of platforms (air, land, sea, sub).

 

Land based ICBMs on the other hand are very vulnerable to first strikes unless they are at full readiness to launch before they are taken out, which is expensive. We can only keep a portion of those weapons ready to launch at any one time which means the majority of our ICBMs would be taken out in a first strike by Russia. If we made a no first use policy we could theoretically get rid of those ICBMs and go with SLBMs and cruise missiles for our nuclear arsenal.

 

I personally think the days of the ICBM are numbered anyway. Laser technology will probably doom them within 15 years. By then we will have X-Band radar all around the likely threat states and Megawatt+ class lasers ready to crisp any targets. Anything that makes so large a signature as an ICBM does should be a fairly easy target. Hard to stealth the ionized atmosphere. Lot's easier to stealth a cruise missile moving slowly at ground level generating as little heat as possible. "Escape Velocity" does not mix with stealth.