Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday June 06 2018, @12:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the sure-that-will-help dept.

"The Pentagon has completed initial draft plans for several emerging low-yield sea-launched nuclear weapons intended to deter potential attackers and add new precision strike options to those currently possible with the existing arsenal.

While final requirements for both a low-yield sea-launched nuclear cruise missile and long-range sub-launched low-yield warhead are still in development, Pentagon officials tell Warrior Maven the process has taken several substantial new steps forward."

A Trident missile with a low-yield warhead "would offer a yet-to-exist long-range low-yield sea launched weapon. The existing Trident II D5 has a massive 100-kiloton yield, bringing massive destructive power to large swaths of territories – entire cities and well beyond."

foxnews.com/tech/2018/06/05/pentagon-completes-draft-plans-for-new-low-yield-sea-launched-nuclear-weapon.html

Also covered by:


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 06 2018, @06:11PM (1 child)

    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday June 06 2018, @06:11PM (#689439) Journal

    Exactly.

    The only reason to go after low-yield nukes is that Russia has already developed and stock-piled several versions of them and has been talking loudly about lowering the threshold for their use.

    (US has some rather ancient versions of these too, but has never deployed them in the field as they were designed mostly to stop a massive Soviet armored invasion of Europe.)

    The US has never had a believable deterrent to a very small tactical nuke. Nobody believes the US would use a 100-kiloton response (taking out entire cities) to a small battle field nuke used to take out a US forward Airbase, or a Kim Jung Un mini-nuke dropped on Guam.

    The Russian Hypersonic vehicles [cnbc.com] (currently unstoppable) can deliver a small nuke any where in the world. First use of such would probably be non nuclear, just to judge world opinion. If I were Ukrane, I'd be very worried.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 06 2018, @07:40PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday June 06 2018, @07:40PM (#689503)

    The US has never had a believable deterrent to a very small tactical nuke. Nobody believes the US would use a 100-kiloton response (taking out entire cities) to a small battle field nuke used to take out a US forward Airbase, or a Kim Jung Un mini-nuke dropped on Guam.

    Right: They'd just drone-strike or bomb all of the places Kim Jong Un is likely to be, simultaneously, from their nearby bases in Korea and Japan.

    As for the Chinese, the biggest threat in their arsenal is cutting off trade to the US, and/or dumping their investments in US T-Bills and US dollars in general. And that's a threat you can't make go away by blowing things up.

    And regarding the Russians, if they provoke anything in Ukraine, then the US will have no reason to keep the gloves on in Syria. Also, an attack on their ally Iran is now in a lot more likely, because the next step after Syria would be to take over Iran and then push into the Caucuses to get control over Russia's oil and gas supplies. All of which can be done with the weapons currently available to the US.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.