The Senseless Danger of the Military’s New “Low-Yield” Nuclear Warhead
Not necessarily senseless. If a low-yield nuke is bad because it reduces the threshold to nuclear war, then the article itself mentions that America already has about 1000 such nukes. Adding a few more will not fundamentally change the picture in any way.<p>Then why create these new nukes? There&#x27;s obviously an official explanation, which you can read here [1]:<p>&quot;to address the conclusion that potential adversaries, like Russia, believe that employment of low-yield nuclear weapons will give them an advantage over the United States and its allies and partners. This supplemental capability strengthens deterrence and provides the United States a prompt, more survivable low-yield strategic weapon; supports our commitment to extended deterrence; and demonstrates to potential adversaries that there is no advantage to limited nuclear employment because the United States can credibly and decisively respond to any threat scenario.&quot;<p>But why are the new nukes necessary if the US already has 1000 low-yield nukes? The prior low-yields available were 0.3, 1.5, 5 and 10 kT TNT [2]. It appears that the new nuke, W76-2 has a yield that fits in the gap between 5 and 10kt (the exact yield is classified). More importantly though, the existing low-yield warheads are either gravity bombs (B61) or air-launched cruise missiles (AGM-86B). Launching them is a headache. Shifting these nukes from one military base to another is a headache. Just making the preparations necessary to launch these nukes will escalate tensions. Having W76-2 available 24&#x2F;7 on nuclear submarines can change the situation. And finally, as the DoD states, the Trident-based nukes are more survivable.<p>The nightmare scenario that keeps US military planners up at night is a fait-accompli Russian invasion of the Baltic republics. How do you stop a few thousand tanks advancing towards Riga, when your closest mechanized forces are in Poland and the way to Riga goes through the Suwalki gap [3]  that the Russians can easily interdict? An easy solution is to invoke  Nato&#x27;s Article 5, and then drop a nuke on the territory of a Nato member (Estonia). It&#x27;s not nuking Russia. It&#x27;s nuking one&#x27;s own territory in a defensive position. That&#x27;s a scenario Russia will keep in mind.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.defense.gov&#x2F;Newsroom&#x2F;Releases&#x2F;Release&#x2F;Article&#x2F;2073532&#x2F;statement-on-the-fielding-of-the-w76-2-low-yield-submarine-launched-ballistic-m&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.defense.gov&#x2F;Newsroom&#x2F;Releases&#x2F;Release&#x2F;Article&#x2F;20...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;allthingsnuclear.org&#x2F;lgronlund&#x2F;us-already-has-low-yield-nuclear-warheads" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;allthingsnuclear.org&#x2F;lgronlund&#x2F;us-already-has-low-yi...</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nationalinterest.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;buzz&#x2F;suwalki-gap-40-mile-line-nato-ready-go-war-russia-over-52172" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nationalinterest.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;buzz&#x2F;suwalki-gap-40-mile-l...</a>