When I first read this I was astonished. I recall the days of tactical nuclear weapons in the Cold War era. Atomic cannons, nuclear armed backpacks for the sabotaging of dams, nuclear land mines, and a whole witch’s nest of other bizarre devices were proposed and/or deployed.
(I still wonder if I actually saw an atomic cannon moving through a small German town one late night. For whatever reason I couldn’t sleep and in the presunrise hours looked out the second story window of the room we were staying in and saw what certainly looked like an "Atomic Annie" cannon to me being carefully maneuvered through the dark, empty streets. When I asked around to see if any of the adults know about any such devices actually being deployed in Germany at the time no one seemed to be sure. Were they not sure? Or are they just keeping a secret? Don’t know to this day.)
When I was a child it seemed one more exciting military device. But later I realized the foolishness of such a thing. The vast power of even a low yield nuclear device is simply too much to be utilized for tactical purposes, and there’s also the issue of what consequences result. Tactical or strategic, using a nuke is using a nuke! The nation that has such a weapon used against its armed forces might very well reply with a strategic nuclear device and that’s World War III.*
So the U.S. deploying a tactical nuclear missile today seemed to make no sense to me at all.
Thankfully, I have an excellent resource. My friend Bobby is an expert in economic and military issues. So I asked him why are we doing this? His response made it clear that I was correct in thinking that there was some risk of escalation from tactical to strategic (though potentially less than I had believed), but that I was wrong in thinking that there was no sane reason for the deployment. Here’s his explanation:
So much to say here. My entire 'expertise' involves the relevance of tactical nukes and whether there exists a nuclear taboo that makes their use unthinkable. Most people, including policymakers, believe that the taboo exists, it is strong, and it restrains actions. My research found that to not be the case at all. Planners strenuously tried to find a good use for them and usually failed to do so. Mainly, they are relative crummy weapons to existing conventional alternatives.
Submarine nuke deployment is obviously not new, in fact, it is the bedrock of the US nuclear triad. The objective of this low yield deployment is interesting - to respond to low-yield nuclear attacks. The purpose is to control runaway escalation by creating more "rungs on the escalation ladder." I do believe it will actually have some deterrent value; there is a calculated temptation by a nuclear adversary to use a low-yield nuke on an asset outside of the homeland given that a disproportionate US response with a strategic nuke (probably triggering general nuke war) is not very credible. This demonstrates that proportional responses are available to us.
The real issue is what is known as the distinguishability problem. This low yield warhead is simply an augmentation of the W76 on a trident; consequently, it is indistinguishable from its big brother when used. Adversaries are poised to misidentify it because of the risks of being wrong. Big bad.
So, possibly good for nuclear deterrence with Russia and China. Not actually helpful for escalation control or use.
Bobby Valentine
PhD Political Science
University of Chicago
*Note: Yes the great fear of a war with the Soviet Union was that masses of Soviet tanks would swarm through the Fulga Gap invading Germany and tactical nuclear weapons did seem like a way to clearly put an end to that, but at the risk of World War III turning into the extermination of mankind? Well, at least it was intended as a deterrent for the Soviet tank invasion which never happened. An invasion we military brats who lived in Germany thought might happen any day.
No comments:
Post a Comment