Pentagon deploys low-yield nuclear weapon for first time: report

[Leroy N. Soetoro]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/pentagon-deploys-low-yield-nuclear-weapin-for-
first-time

The Pentagon Tuesday said it has deployed a new low-yield submarine-
launched ballistic missile armed with a nuclear warhead to counter
Russia’s arsenal of smaller tactical nuclear weapons.

"This supplemental capability strengthens deterrence and provides the
United States a prompt, more survivable low-yield strategic weapon," John
Rood, the undersecretary of defense for policy, said in a statement.

He says the weapon, known as W76-2, lowers the risk of nuclear war.

Critics say low-yield nuclear weapons lower the threshold for using
nuclear weapons, increasing the risk of nuclear war. And while W76-2’s
strength is classified, experts say it likely has around one-third the
power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

The warhead is the first major addition to the U.S. nuclear arsenal in
decides and shows a departure from the Obama administration’s policy of
lessening dependence of nukes for deterrence.

Details about where and when the weapon was deployed are classified, Rood
said.

The Trump administration aims to “dissuade” Russia from thinking it could
win a war in Europe if it used its own low-yield weapons first, forcing
the U.S. to either surrender or respond with full-scale nuclear war.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash, said "The administration’s decision to deploy the
W76-2 warhead remains a misguided and dangerous one," Reuters reported.
"The deployment of this warhead does nothing to make Americans safer."

Bruce Blair, co-founder of Global Zero, an international group advocating
for the elimination of nuclear arms, also opposes W76-2 and testified in
front of Congress last year.

“We must not delude ourselves into thinking lower-yield nukes are more
usable in a conflict,” the former Air Force nuclear weapons officer
testified.

“Any use of this sea-based weapon -- either first or second -- will risk
stoking the flames of conflict and escalating to all-out nuclear war,"
Blair said. "A wiser response to an enemy’s use of one or two low-yield
nukes would be to refrain from nuclear escalation while unleashing
America’s ferocious and decisive conventional juggernaut.”



--
No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.

Donald J. Trump, 304 electoral votes to 227, defeated compulsive liar in
denial Hillary Rodham Clinton on December 19th, 2016. The clown car
parade of the democrat party ran out of gas and got run over by a Trump
truck.

Congratulations President Trump. Thank you for cleaning up the disaster
of the Obama presidency.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.

President Trump has boosted the economy, reduced illegal immigration,
appointed dozens of judges and created jobs.

Sore loser and NAMBLA supporter Nancy Pelosi just pulled the "Obamacare
switcheroo" on "trumped up" impeachment charges.

[Byker]

"Leroy N. Soetoro" wrote in message
news:lnsAB5A967788...@202.81.252.44...
>
> https://www.foxnews.com/us/pentagon-deploys-low-yield-nuclear-weapin-for-first-time

>
> Critics say low-yield nuclear weapons lower the threshold for using
> nuclear weapons, increasing the risk of nuclear war. And while W76-2’s
> strength is classified, experts say it likely has around one-third the
> power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

7 Kilotons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W76

7 KT test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypgr9-4Fqww

Enough to take out city hall and associated government
offices, leaving most of the civilian population alive:
https://tinyurl.com/qkmc9ky

The lethal radius of heat, blast, and radiation
would reach out to about 4,400 feet.

At a burst height of 1,200 feet, fallout would be negligible...

[Byker]

"PhantomView" wrote in message
news:tb0n3fdhjj81feb3p...@4ax.com...

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 18:59:07 -0600, "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>
>>At a burst height of 1,200 feet, fallout would be negligible...
>

> Well, not really "negligible" .....
>
> 7kt is still a pretty big bang. More than just city hall. The
> serious immediate effects would reach out a couple of
> miles and the slow-death radiation a few miles downwind
> from that. A real "low yeild" device would be from about
> 0.6kt (power of the original "nuclear cannon" shell) to
> maybe 2kt.

The "original" 280mm cannon shell was 15KT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_atomic_cannon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goMNAxFqGbk

The 155mm W48 was 0.072KT (72 tons)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

During the Cold War, the Soviets had something we didn't: A nuclear MORTAR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/240_mm_mortar_M240
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/atomnaya-artilleriya.htm

They really need to put the W54 back into production. Who can forget the
Davy Crockett "nuclear bazooka"?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

> As for the *advisability* of toting such things around ... on
> the whole it may not be the best idea. The notion of "small"
> might start to make nuking things seem more trivial, more
> acceptable. It is not, they are a whole other class of
> weapon - and have many many bigger brothers.

A few more nuclear points to ponder:

I always wondered about what would happen to neutral countries during or
after Armageddon -- doubtlessly some would be targeted to keep them from
"taking over" in the aftermath.

It's very likely that both sides will attempt to 'neutralize' neutral
nations they see as a potential threat in the post-strike world. It's even
money that one of the RN's Polaris missiles has Puerto Belgrano's name on
it.

I wonder how many nukes would be held back even in the event of full scale
war - I imagine each side would have a few kept to one side just in case any
neutrals got fresh (i.e in Britain's case -- the Republic makes a push for
Ulster or the Argies grab their chance) during the post-war mess.

It wouldn't take all that many weapons to 'neutralize' most European
neutrals - a bomb on the capital and the biggest couple of administrative
centers, make them ground bursts to spread fallout. Although they can't hit
back if they survive intact they could potentially become a threat in the
post-war period; at least that would be the thinking amongst the strategic
planners. Throw two, or three bombs each at them and they'll be too busy
rebuilding like everyone else.

Taking the Republic of Ireland with limited numbers of weapons I'd go for
Dublin (which was included in a British civil defense exercise), the
Curragh, Knock and Shannon Airports and Cork. A small targeting plan like
that will take out the Irish government, the majority of their army and
potentially deny two big airports and a major port to NATO. Even if the
Republic survives relatively unscathed I doubt there will be much for them
to take over in the North - Belfast will be gone, ditto Londonderry/Derry,
even if it is only because the Russkies go for nearby Shackleton Barracks.

Taking out Argentina could be done either by Polaris, or by arming the jets
based at RAF Stanley with WE.177 gravity bombs. Once the missiles start
flying all the political constrains about using nuclear weapons go out of
the window - if your homeland is about to be reduced to twelve irradiated
fiefdoms, then blowing up a non-nuclear country because they are about to
invade a bit of your territory which will probably survive is a given...

[Byker]

wrote in message
news:9c609a16-6bd3-4ab8...@googlegroups.com...
>
> The number suggested is to limit to 100 tons. This is precision
> targeting.

And to think that the first battlefield "tactical" nuclear missile, the
Redstone, with a range of 200 miles, had a warhead on 3.8 MEGATONS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-11_Redstone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_39_nuclear_bomb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9YEm_QU4rY

Talk about wiping out the enemy, multiple divisions at a time...