Nuclear Proliferation and Preventive War

[Zagadka]

Contrary to popular expectations, the fall of the Soviet Union has made the situation of nuclear proliferation and the Cold War arms race even more dangerous and threatening. Whereas the Cold War saw two relatively stable governments exacting a delicate control on their arms and sustaining a MAD-situation, the demise of the Soviet Union defenestrated everything that counted. The situation now is multiple governments striving for nuclear technology to keep up with their neighbors, and increasingly, direct “hot” conflicts between them. The necessity of a “first strike” capability, unlike during most of the Cold War, is now the primary driving force.

While the Soviet Union and the United States maintained a fairly tight grip on their nuclear superiority, nations now are exporting technology and materials at a high rate for economic and political profit. Cite Germany and Russia exporting to Iran, Russia to China, Israel to India, North Korea to Pakistan, Israel to South Africa, and the rising forces of the likes of Brazil. Each country that gains a nuclear capability - or even a suspected nuclear capability - presents a regional crisis, as neighboring nations see a strong shift if power and feel the need to meet the threat. Case in point, India and Pakistan. Sometimes, the nations aren’t direct neighbors - Iraq and Israel, for instance, or a number of nations and the United States.

The fact is, that each country that gains nuclear capability - even within the protocols of the various treaties and inspections - creates unequalled political turmoil and regional cold wars.

This nuclear proliferation is not without consequence to America. The primary way to prevent a nation with nuclear leanings - as sanctions begin to fail - is first strike capability. With the horror of MAD in the past, first strike becomes a valid military tactic - nation X begins reaching nuclear capability deployment, nation Y feels the need to remove that threat before it exists. The nuclear arms race of the mid-term future is not one of MAD, but first strike- as even the United States looks at nuclear arms in the future, the trend is for faster, trimmer weapons that can be deployed rapidly and strike with amazing accuracy. A more tactical threat - and one that is more likely to be deployed.

As more nations gain these capabilities- the questions are these. When is it considered valid - and safe - to exercise the first strike capabilities? How will these strikes be viewed from the receiving nations, much less the international community? How does the threat of conventional war in the region balance the threat of nuclear extermination?

First strike is a terrifying capability that threatens regional and global peace and political balance. We must figure out a more careful way to achieve international balance, to retain the relative peace of MAD, and develop an international dialogue between nuclear-capable nations to spread understanding and careful deliberation before any military action is taken.

The United States is, recently, taking a very proactive approach to the problem, stating bluntly that it will use first strike capabilities to prevent WMDs from reaching the hands of other governments. How dangerous is this type of gunboat diplomacy, and for how long can it prevent proliferation, given the international marketplace?

Any thoughts?

[Squink]

@Zagadka

The United States is, recently, taking a very proactive approach to the problem, stating bluntly that it will use first strike capabilities to prevent WMDs from reaching the hands of other governments. How dangerous is this type of gunboat diplomacy, and for how long can it prevent proliferation, given the international marketplace?
Any thoughts?

Tough talk does little to prevent, and may even encourage proliferation, particularly when our special allies are in the business of selling bomb making parts and know how: US rewards Pakistan despite nuclear secrets panhandling
Other than its tough talk, this administration gives all appearances of being actively pro-proliferation:

Bush Stresses Importance of Nunn-Lugar Programs but Cuts Funds in 2005 Budget Request

U.S. Lags in Recovering Fuel Suitable for Nuclear Arms

Pentagon making case for new nukes

Probe Casts Doubt on Iraq Nuclear Security

[kanicbird]

Contrary to popular expectations, the fall of the Soviet Union has made the situation of nuclear proliferation and the Cold War arms race even more dangerous and threatening

This statement in the OP is clearly opinion.

The fact that technology is advancing and ‘lesser’ states now can get nukes has really nothing to do w/ the cold war. A case can be made that in the fall of the USSR some nukes might have been sold to really bad guys, but then again would you rather have the possibility of one nuke go off by a terrorist or a full out thermonuclear war between the superpowers?

[Declan]

@Zagadka

How does the threat of conventional war in the region balance the threat of nuclear extermination?

Example Israel , the nuclear option works

First strike is a terrifying capability that threatens regional and global peace and political balance. We must figure out a more careful way to achieve international balance, to retain the relative peace of MAD, and develop an international dialogue between nuclear-capable nations to spread understanding and careful deliberation before any military action is taken.

Your getting fixated on the term , first strike. This basically assumes that there is either a second strike , or follow on strikes. The majority of nukes in hands other than the top tier nations , fall into the category of political weapons , rather than actual weapons.

The United States is, recently, taking a very proactive approach to the problem, stating bluntly that it will use first strike capabilities to prevent WMDs from reaching the hands of other governments. How dangerous is this type of gunboat diplomacy, and for how long can it prevent proliferation, given the international marketplace?

That statement is misleading. In reality what was actually said was that the United States reserves the right to make pre-emptive action , to secure its security in the future. If thats used with conventional weapons , cool, but its not limited to just conventional.

While the rest of the world will concider them nuclear , the US is designing a series of weapons deemed to be subatomic , that are more powerful than normal conventional weapons ,but below the kt threshold of fission weapons.

As for how dangerous it is , to dust off gunboat diplomatic exchanges ,probably less than sending out misleading signals to the rest of the world that you may just be able to drop a nuke on karachi or delhi and get away with it.

If it contains the rogue governments for the next ten or twenty years ,then it will have been worth it.

Declan

[PatriotX]

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

This statement in the OP is clearly opinion.

The fact that technology is advancing and ‘lesser’ states now can get nukes has really nothing to do w/ the cold war.

@kanicbird

A case can be made that in the fall of the USSR some nukes might have been sold to really bad guys, but then again would you rather have the possibility of one nuke go off by a terrorist or a full out thermonuclear war between the superpowers?

IIRC, the case revolves around deterrability. The theory is that the USSR was deterrable while rogue actors such as al Qaeda are not. Therefore, even though the worst case outcomes for the two scenarios are incredibly unequal, with all out thermonuclear heck being much worse than a , (or a series of), relatively low yeild nuclear explosions, the assessment is that there’s more that can be done to prevent a state actor from initiating all out thermonuclear heck than can be done to prevent those like al Qaeda from doing so. What’s necessary here is an assessment of probability and relative influence over the situation.
Many people, including the current Admin, think that nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists is more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of Commies.

[Zagadka]

@Declan

Example Israel , the nuclear option works

So far. Israel has not competed against strong states rich enough to afford the technology - the one that came close is Iraq, and they didn’t come all THAT close. Iran is next in line. But for the most part, Israel was facing conventional militaries, and is currently facing militias. The nuclear arms don’t come into play very much for Israel, unless you think Syria or Egypt are going to decide an invasion is in order, which isn’t very likely.

On the other hand, we can observe India and Pakistan. The mini-arms race between the two nations was a direct result of a nuclear imbalance - had Pakistan not secured its own medium range nuclear capability, the region may well have already fallen into war.

Your getting fixated on the term , first strike. This basically assumes that there is either a second strike , or follow on strikes. The majority of nukes in hands other than the top tier nations , fall into the category of political weapons , rather than actual weapons.

I believe I didn’t state my case strongly enough, then.

There is a difference between a first strike weapon and a political deterrant weapon. The nuclear program of the United States is moving into the direction of tactical strike weapons. My case is that the future nuclear arsenals will be first strike, rather than threat, weapons. In situations where the political balance isn’t even on the level of the US/USSR relations, where nations don’t even talk to each other, this is a very, very dangerous precedent.

As for the term “first strike,” it merely implies a strike before the enemy can respond, as in getting in the first hit before they do. It does not necessarily require a response strike.

That statement is misleading. In reality what was actually said was that the United States reserves the right to make pre-emptive action , to secure its security in the future. If thats used with conventional weapons , cool, but its not limited to just conventional.

I don’t see how it is misleading - it remains a first strike capability.

If it contains the rogue governments for the next ten or twenty years ,then it will have been worth it.

I don’t see MAD being the force that contains rogue governments for the medium-term future. It certainly did no good against Pakistan, India, North Korea, Iran, South Africa, and Brazil. In fact, America seems to have no problem with people attaining nuclear powers, as long as their missiles can’t reach us and they aren’t Iraq.

I think that our best hope is careful intelligence and constant inspections of developing nuclear powers. Waving around guns makes it more likely people are going to get shot eventually.

[PatriotX]

@Declan

While the rest of the world will concider them nuclear , the US is designing a series of weapons deemed to be subatomic , that are more powerful than normal conventional weapons ,but below the kt threshold of fission weapons.

I think that the term you’re looking for is low yield nuclear weapons. Sunatomic weapons are things of SF AFAICT.

IIRC, these weapons are projected to be about 5 kt. I think that the Hiroshima bomb was along the order of 15 kt.

Also, IIRC, these are “fission weapons.”

[PatriotX]

Ahem…
I think that the term you’re looking for is low yield nuclear weapons. Subatomic weapons are things of SF, AFAICT.

IIRC, these weapons are projected to be about 5 kt. I think that the Hiroshima bomb was along the order of 15 kt.

Also, IIRC, these are “fission weapons.”

[Declan]

@Zagadka

So far. Israel has not competed against strong states rich enough to afford the technology - the one that came close is Iraq, and they didn’t come all THAT close. Iran is next in line. But for the most part, Israel was facing conventional militaries, and is currently facing militias. The nuclear arms don’t come into play very much for Israel, unless you think Syria or Egypt are going to decide an invasion is in order, which isn’t very likely.

Yes but those nations did have the wealth to afford coventional weapons with the backing of a superpower sponsor , in the soviet union. Now those nations are on tough times, and if they did not come that close , it was not for want of trying.

Nukes were the ultimate garuntor for Israel , to deal with a UAR type invasion.
When they say never again , they have some aces this time.

On the other hand, we can observe India and Pakistan. The mini-arms race between the two nations was a direct result of a nuclear imbalance - had Pakistan not secured its own medium range nuclear capability, the region may well have already fallen into war.

China/India/Pakistan is still too early to call it a sucess , that region may yet endure another kargil that boils over to a conventional war. However with enough time , its expected that the china/india/pakistan will follow the superpower script with regards to dealings with each other.

I believe I didn’t state my case strongly enough, then.

There is a difference between a first strike weapon and a political deterrant weapon. The nuclear program of the United States is moving into the direction of tactical strike weapons. My case is that the future nuclear arsenals will be first strike, rather than threat, weapons. In situations where the political balance isn’t even on the level of the US/USSR relations, where nations don’t even talk to each other, this is a very, very dangerous precedent.

Okay , i will leave the nit picking with the direction your talking about , but would you please iluminate what your fears for this dangerous precedent are ?

As for the term “first strike,” it merely implies a strike before the enemy can respond, as in getting in the first hit before they do. It does not necessarily require a response strike.

Culture shock , talk with anyone of a certain age ,and it very much does mean a repsonse strike.

Obviously the world has moved on.

I don’t see how it is misleading - it remains a first strike capability.

See above , tis an age thing

I don’t see MAD being the force that contains rogue governments for the medium-term future. It certainly did no good against Pakistan, India, North Korea, Iran, South Africa, and Brazil. In fact, America seems to have no problem with people attaining nuclear powers, as long as their missiles can’t reach us and they aren’t Iraq.

MAD was mutually assured destruction ,cause both sides had enough nukes for follow on strikes to make victory pyrhic. The US has since engaged a policy of flexible response that puts nukes into the thinking process of dealing with or supporting diplomatic efforts.

[QUOTE**I think that our best hope is careful intelligence and constant inspections of developing nuclear powers. **Waving around guns makes it more likely people are going to get shot eventually.[/QUOTE]

WE dont want them to develop at all, we want to contain the leakers that have gotten through and roll back what ever efforts that they have achieved. Keep nukes in the hands of the top tier nations , let the lesser nations achieve political maturity without commiting atrocitys.

Declan

[PatriotX]

from FAS
The B61-11 Nuclear Bomb
However, mini-nuke advocates — mostly coming from the nuclear weapons labs — argue that low-yield nuclear weapons should be designed to destroy even deeper targets.

The US introduced an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon in 1997, the B61-11, by putting the nuclear explosive from an earlier bomb design into a hardened steel casing with a new nose cone to provide ground penetration capability. The deployment was controversial because of official US policy not to develop new nuclear weapons. The DOE and the weapons labs have consistently argued, however, that the B61-11 is merely a “modification” of an older delivery system, because it used an existing “physics package.”

The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its** 0.3-300 kiloton yield range**, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area.

[Declan]

@SimonX

Ahem…

Something about that just makes me want to chuckle

I think that the term you’re looking for is low yield nuclear weapons. Subatomic weapons are things of SF, AFAICT.

IIRC, these weapons are projected to be about 5 kt. I think that the Hiroshima bomb was along the order of 15 kt.

Also, IIRC, these are “fission weapons.”

The article I was reading , in wired , about bomb school was probably on order of what your are discussing. Me , I was thinking more along the lines of a 1 kt nuke or smaller.

I must look up the “ahem” projected yeild of the honest john device , and the air to air missiles of the 50’s , both projects should have had devices that would have yeilds in that KT band.

Declan

[PatriotX]

The ahem was me clearing my throat as I’d just posted a handfull of typos.
Starting with an ahem helps weed out typos, doncha know?

[Declan]

@SimonX

from FAS

The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its** 0.3-300 kiloton yield range**, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area.

What they don’t tell you is that the nuke would have a shaped charge, that punches downwards even more. The casualty reports of the device is probably classified , but I can guess that the huge crater would be roughly in the order of twenty feet. And the radio active containment zone would be four miles in diameter , and would collapse inwards. Gamma is the strongest ,but its also the shortest lived of radioactives.

By the way , the above is strictly opinion for discussing, no cite will be forthcoming.

Declan

[PatriotX]

@Declan

What they don’t tell you is that the nuke would have a shaped charge, that punches downwards even more. The casualty reports of the device is probably classified , but I can guess that the huge crater would be roughly in the order of twenty feet. And the radio active containment zone would be four miles in diameter , and would collapse inwards. Gamma is the strongest ,but its also the shortest lived of radioactives.

By the way , the above is strictly opinion for discussing, no cite will be forthcoming.

Declan

Crater formation is discussed at the FAS link I previously provided.

---

In order to be fully contained, nuclear explosions at the Nevada Test Site must be buried at a depth of 650 feet for a 5 kiloton explosive — 1300 feet for a 100-kiloton explosive. Even then, there are many documented cases where carefully sealed shafts ruptured and released radioactivity to the local environment.

Therefore, even if an earth penetrating missile were somehow able to drill hundreds of feet into the ground and then detonate, the explosion would likely shower the surrounding region with highly radioactive dust and gas.

Fig. 5 Underground nuclear tests must be buried at large depths and carefully sealed in order to fully contain the explosion. Shallower bursts produce large craters and intense local fallout. The situation shown here is for an explosion with a 1 KT yield and the depths shown are in feet. Even a 0.1 KT burst must be buried at a depth of approximately 230 feet to be fully contained.

---

I’d be willing to bet that even one ton of tnt, 0.001kt, would yield a crater larger than 20ft. IIRC, carbombs in Iraq have left craters larger than that.

I’m fairly certain that we don’t have the technology to produce materials capable of shaping the explosion of a nuclear device. I think that heat of the explosion pretty much vaporizes the components that immediately surround it, thus rendering them unable to shape the blast.

Maybe someone with more expertise will chime in.

Anyway, regardless of the technology used, the scarier part, especially given what we’re finding out about our capabilities to gather and use intelligence, is the preventive war part.