U.S. Navy Deploys New Low Yield Submarined-Based Nuclear Weapons
According to analysts this move may be to send a message to North Korea:
The Pentagon confirmed Tuesday it has deployed a new low-yield nuclear warhead on at least one strategic submarine, citing the need to deter potential adversaries, which could include North Korea.
John Rood, U.S. under secretary of defense for policy, said in a statement that the W76-2 low-yield warhead had been fielded on the U.S. Navy’s submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM).
The move appeared to be reciprocal, according to Rood, who said it was “to address the conclusion that potential adversaries, like Russia, believe that employment of low-yield nuclear weapons will give them an advantage over the United States and its allies and partners.” (……)
But Kristensen assessed that despite the focus on deploying the weapon to deter Russia, “it is much more likely that the new low-yield weapon is intended to facilitate first-use of nuclear weapons against North Korea or Iran.”
Joong Ang Ilbo
You can read more at the link, but the low yield nukes are supposed to have about a third of the power of the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan during World War II.
Oh, and the fact that they announced it definitely means that they wanted Iran and North Korea to know it was a possible first-strike weapon.
Me, in the Navy in the 1980s:
We can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons.
Navy Now: You, dawg! We gots us a Baby Nuke! Don’t start nothing, there won’t be nothing, and everything be everything! LMAO!
I guess in the Google Era, OPSEC is more of a suggestion than an actual requirement.
*Yo, Dawg
Autocorrect, fixing my ducking slang…
MTB, I know the feeling. We were not allowed to bring cameras into B-52s in the 70s; but now my old office is everywhere… photos mostly from the 80s…
@MTB Rider – I am Navy vet too and served from 80 to 2000. I feel ya! There are still some things that I know about the Navy that I cannot tell anyone about. However, we never had to scare the Russians, they always knew we could kick their rusty asses. National leaders today actually think that religion or ideology will save them from nuclear war.
For years, we’ve been told that the best deterrence against nuclear war was mutually assured destruction. Now, the deterrence is we have nukes that won’t completely destroy you?
Those think tank eggheads lost me a long time ago.
JoeC, MAD only works against people who don’t want the Apocalypse now. Iran is actively seeking the final conflict that will usher in their 12th Imam (a type of messianic thing where everybody dies and the true Muslims get 72 raisins or something).
Limited nukes against that type of opponent make sense as you can end battles more quickly with fewer dead Americans. And massive asymmetrical force does work to deter, deflate, and defanatasize populations of likely cannon fodder. Look up some quotes from Curtis Lemay on that.
That said I’m not a fan of making any nukes more commonplace or easier to use