Mini-nukes

Adopting a new approach to nuclear weaponry marks a dangerous break from tradition. Dangerous because it means that the US is developing nuclear weaponry which is, at its simplest, more likely to be used, and because it is likely to prompt similar action from other nations.\
Nuclear weapons have two key features which make it desirable that they never be used. Firstly, even the smallest of the mini-nukes under consideration are a hundred times more powerful that the most powerful conventional weaponry. This means they are not ‘smart’ bombs able to be used selectively against purely military targets, but weapons which will inevitably result in massive devastation to soldiers and civilians alike. Secondly, all nuclear weapons produce dangerous levels of radiation which significantly increase the long term damage of the initial blast and make an area uninhabitable for decades.

If the US were to conduct research and possibly deploy mini-nukes, states like Russia and China would feel they would have to do the same in order to be able to respond effectively. They would also have no qualms about breaking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which President Bush is trying to get states like Iran to take more seriously) because the US would have broken it first. There is a significant risk that while the strategic nuclear arms race may have come to an end, mini-nukes might prompt a tactical nuclear arms race as US weapons placed to defend Taiwan, South Korea and Israel might force neighbouring states to develop their own weapons in response. \
The United Kingdom is supposedly considering adopting any US mini-nuke program by replacing its existing Trident system of submarines (due to retire in 2012) with the cheaper mini-nukes. If other nuclear states like France and Israel did this too, surely China and Russia would have no option but to do the same.

The problem with a deterrence program based around the idea that you have to convince your enemies that you are capable of using nuclear weapons, is that it makes you more likely to actually use nuclear weapons. The January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review made it clear that the US should change the way it viewed nuclear weapons as different from other arms, and integrate nuclear with non-nuclear tactical weaponry. Yet a moral stigma has been associated with nuclear weaponry since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, meaning that world leaders have been desperate not to use them - so they are different. With the world’s only superpower breaking the nuclear taboo, they lose any moral leverage they have over countries who do not have nuclear weaponry but are seeking to acquire it.\
Even worse, states like North Korea and Iran can justifiably see the development of mini-nukes as an aggressive step by the US to develop weapons designed for use against them, thus giving them a greater justification for developing their own nuclear weapons in response.\
The US should remember that nuclear weapons are the great leveller: a state like Iran will never have the funds or technology to match the conventional weaponry that the US can bring to bear, but with just one nuclear weapon all that conventional weaponry becomes almost irrelevant. The more states which feel the nuclear taboo has been broken or that they are under threat from the USA, the more states that will develop their own nuclear weapons and the less able the US will be to use its conventional forces as a genuine deterrent. \

We should be sceptical of claims by StratCom and other nuclear hawks in the US military about the potential benefits of mini-nuke bunker busters. Low yield is not no yield; these weapons are always going to result in some radioactive fall out. Even using the US military’s own research, it is clear that unless the bunker buster buries very deep and then explodes some radioactive fall out would escape. Current estimates suggest they would need to reach 100 metres underground (current test missiles have only managed to penetrate up to 10 metres) and it is thought that the force necessary for such penetration would probably result in the weapon melting under the heat created by the penetration.\
Furthermore, given that the claim is that it would be justifiable to use such powerful weapons because they would be destroying other WMD, we should be sure that mini-nuke bunker busters would actually succeed in such missions. Firstly, intelligence accurate enough to justify using nuclear weapons is unlikely to be available. Secondly, scientific studies suggest that there is a high likelihood that the weapons would not be completely destroy any biological stockpiles and that it might even disperse the biological agents into the surrounding area. \
There is, of course, an alternative to mini-nukes; firstly the US can try to cut down the number of states developing places to hide WMD stockpiles through strengthened arms controls (like supporting attempts to include better inspection and monitoring in chemical and biological weapons treaties), and attempts to limit proliferation and arms trading. Secondly, in dealing with HDBTs where they have been built, existing conventional weaponry like the Daisy Cutter fuel-air bombs used by the US against Al Qaeda operatives hiding in the Tora Bora caves of Afghanistan or by Russian forces in Chechnya provide immense explosive force (admittedly with only 0.6% of the force of a 1 kiloton mini-nuke) but without the long term radioactive fallout or problem of blurring the line between conventional and nuclear weaponry.

At some point it is highly likely that live testing will have to take place. Indeed Congress authorised such testing in 2003 and the NPR covered upgrading the testing facilities and retraining staff at sites like Los Alamos. With almost all of the scientists who have first hand knowledge of nuclear testing from the last round of live testing now retired, the idea of being able to develop new weapons based solely on computer simulations and academics’ calculations seems unlikely.\
While the US has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Congressional moratorium on testing has given some support for the treaty. Vocal US criticism of states like India, Pakistan and France for testing nuclear weapons has also helped to limit testing and development mainly to rogue states which have been isolated and condemned by the international community. A change of the USA's position on testing would certainly lead to other countries following its lead.\
We should also not forget that nuclear testing itself causes huge damage to the environment and any resumption would only serve to obliterate more Pacific atolls and parts of New Mexico.

Surely it would be far better to engage nuclear scientists in something of more benefit to humanity, like safer nuclear power stations or nuclear fusion? The risk of a massively funded nuclear program within the USA is that, just as with the Manhattan project, it is likely that any new technology would simply end up being stolen. The fact that scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory repeatedly lose laptops with sensitive information and that the FBI had to investigate allegations of spying at the facility in July 2004 makes research into mini-nukes look like a good way to spread new technology to China and Russia, not maintain US dominance.\
Secondly, there is the risk that whereas strategic nuclear weapons are kept under great security in missile silos, on submarines or at aircraft bases often on the US mainland, tactical weapons are likely to be placed near potential threats and in larger numbers. This makes it more likely that they will be stolen, lost or involved in accidents. Given that mini-nukes have yields low enough to make them practical for terrorist groups to use for political ends, combined with the almost inevitable adoption of mini-nukes by states other than the US, the possibility of a terrorist group acquiring them, potentially for an attack on the US itself, looks high.