Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T12:48:49.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

David A. Koplow
Affiliation:
Georgetown University Law Center
Get access

Summary

Scenario 5

Relations between the United States and the People's Republic of East Chuan have gone from terrible to worse. Decades after the brutal civil war that serrated the east and west halves of the Chuan peninsula into independent, mutually suspicious states, no lasting peace accord has been reached and irredentist sentiments on both sides of the still-tense demilitarized zone perpetually generate nasty border incidents and a genuine fear of renewed hostilities.

The United States ally, West Chuan, has developed into a functioning democracy, reasonably prosperous and stable. In contrast, East Chuan has retrogressed into a xenophobic dictatorship, a hermit fiefdom, isolated from international commerce and the civilizing influences of globalism. Worse, East Chuan has vigorously pursued every form of modern weaponry; although its exact capabilities remain a tightly guarded state secret, United States intelligence estimates that the East Chuanese have stockpiled functioning arsenals of both chemical and biological weapons (CW and BW). With the burgeoning threats of proliferation and terrorism now at the top of the international agenda, East Chuan is suspected of industriously selling its unconventional weapons expertise on the international black market, including perhaps offering CW and BW devices to nonstate actors intent upon wreaking havoc upon the United States and its allies.

Conventional aggression is also a live fear: In recent weeks, the saber-rattling from the East has increased in intensity, troops have been mobilized, weapons have been placed on alert, and the rhetoric has turned increasingly bellicose. Any full-scale attack from East to West Chuan would be disastrous today – the capital cities of the two regimes are barely 200 kilometers apart, and heavily urbanized development would expose millions of civilian residents to the worst ravages of modern combat.

Type
Chapter
Information
Death by Moderation
The U.S. Military's Quest for Useable Weapons
, pp. 104 - 131
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, Graham, Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, 2004
Arkin, William M, Nuclear Junkies: Those Lovable Little Bombs, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 1993, p. 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkin, William M and Norris, Robert S., Tinynukes for Mini Minds, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1992, p. 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broad, William J., Call for New Breed of Nuclear Arms Faces Hurdles, New York Times, March 11, 2002Google Scholar
Bullman, Tim A., Mahan, Clare M., Kang, Han K., and Page, William F., Mortality in US Army Gulf War Veterans Exposed to 1991 Khamisiyah Chemical Munitions Destruction, 95 American Journal of Public Health No. 8, August 2005, p. 1382CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, Amy and Barrie, Douglas, Dig for Victory, Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 11, 2006, p. 52Google Scholar
Campbell, Christopher, Nuclear Weapons Fact Book, 1984
Cirincione, Joseph, Wolfsthal, Jon B., and Rajkumar, Miriam, Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Threats (2nd ed.), 2005
Cochran, Thomas B, Arkin, William M., and Hoenig, Milton M., Nuclear Weapons Databook, Volume 1: U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities, 1984
Dowler, Thomas W and Howard, Joseph S., Countering the Threat of the Well-Armed Tyrant: A Modest Proposal for Small Nuclear Weapons, 19 Strategic Review No. 4, Fall 1991, p. 34Google Scholar
Sidney, D. Drell and James Goodby, E., What, Are Nuclear Weapons For? Recommendations for Restructuring U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces, an Arms Control Association Report, April 2005
Drell, Sidney, Goodby, James, Jeanloz, Raymond, and Peurifoy, Robert, A Strategic Choice: New Bunker Busters Versus Nonproliferation, 33 Arms Control Today No. 2, March 2003, p. 8Google Scholar
Eden, Lynn, Whole World on Fire: Organizations, Knowledge, and Nuclear Weapons Devastation, 2004
Ferguson, Charles D., Mini-Nuclear Weapons and the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, April 8, 2002
Fisher, David, Army Trains for Combat in a New Kind of Battlefield: Afghan Caves, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 1, 2001
Former Military and Civilian Leadership Oppose Nuclear Bunker Buster Funding, armscontrolcenter.org, July 26, 2005
Fry, James D, Contextualized Legal Reviews for the Methods and Means of Warfare: Cave Combat and International Humanitarian Law, 44 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law453, 2006Google Scholar
Glasstone, Samuel and Philip, J. Dolan, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 1977
Gordon, Michael R, Nuclear Arms: For Deterrence or Fighting?New York Times, March 11, 2002, p. A1Google Scholar
Gronlund, Lisbeth, Wright, David, and Nelson, Robert, Global Security Backgrounder: Earth Penetrating Weapons, May 2005
Grossman, Elaine M, More Accurate U.S. Nuclear Trident Faces Controversy, Global Security Newswire, August 17, 2007
Hansen, Chuck, US Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History, 1988
,International Court of Justice, Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Advisory Opinion), ICJ Reports, July 8, 1996, p. 66
Kahn, Herman, On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios, 1965
Kimball, Daryl G, Nuclear Bunker-Buster (As We Know It) Is Dead, Arms Control Association Analysis, October 26, 2005
Kitfield, James, Ban the Bomb? Heck No, It's Too Useful, National Journal, September 12, 2001Google Scholar
Levi, Michael A, Fire in the Hole: Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Options for Counter-proliferation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Global Policy Program, Non-Proliferation Program, Working Paper No. 31, November 2002
Lichterman, Andrew M, Sliding Towards the Brink: More Useable Nuclear Weapons and the Dangerous Illusions of High-Tech War, Western States Legal Foundation Information Bulletin, March 2003Google Scholar
May, Michael and Haldeman, Zachary, Effectiveness of Nuclear Weapons against Buried Biological Agents, 12 Science and Global Security No. 1–2, 2004, p. 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, Robert, Apocalypse Soon, Foreign Policy, May/June 2005
Medalia, Jonathan, Nuclear Weapon Initiatives: Low-Yield R&D, Advanced Concepts, Earth Penetrators, Test Readiness, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RL32130, October 28, 2003
Medalia, Jonathan, ‘Bunker Busters’: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005–FY2007, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RL32347, February 21, 2006
Medalia, Jonathan, The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program: Background and Current Developments, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RL32929, September 18, 2007
Mello, Greg, Bomb, New, No Mission, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June, 1997, p. 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Steven Lee, The Targets: Jets Said to Avoid Poison Gas Sites, New York Times, December 18, 1998, p. A1Google Scholar
,National Research Council, Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and Other Weapons, National Academies Press, 2005
Nelson, Robert W., Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons, 10 Science and Global Security No. 1, 2002, p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Robert W., Nuclear ‘Bunker Busters’ Would More Likely Disperse Than Destroy Buried Stockpiles of Biological and Chemical Agents, 12 Science and Global Security No. 1–2, 2004, p. 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Robert S and Kristensen, Hans M., The U.S. Nuclear Stockpile, Today and Tomorrow, 63 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists No. 5, September/October 2007, p. 60Google Scholar
Norris, Robert S. and Kristensen, Hans M., U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2008, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April 2008, p. 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Robert S. and Kristensen, Hans M., U.S. Nuclear Warheads, 1945–2009, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 2009, p. 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Keith B., The Nuclear Jitters, National Review, June 30, 2003, p. 22Google Scholar
Payne, Keith B., The Nuclear Posture Review: Setting the Record Straight, 28 Washington Quarterly No. 3, Summer 2005, p. 135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Keith B., On Nuclear Deterrence and Assurance, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Spring 2009, p. 43Google Scholar
Pincus, Walter, Senate Bill Requires Study of New Nuclear Weapons, Washington Post, June 12, 2000, p. A2
Ricks, Thomas E, Tender Bombs? U.S. Military Mulls Weapons That Disable Bunkers, Save People, Wall Street Journal, July 1, 1999, p. A1Google Scholar
Robinson, C. Paul, Maintaining a Viable Nuclear Weapons Program in a Test Ban Environment: A Strong Technical Foundation in the Laboratories, March 28, 2000, http://www.sandia.gov/media/speeches/NSDMF2000.doc
Rumsfeld, Donald, testimony to U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, Hearings on Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Department Appropriations, April 27, 2005
Schwartz, Stephen I, Four Trillion Dollars and Counting, 51 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists No. 6, November/December 1995, p. 32Google Scholar
Sepp, Eric M., Deeply Buried Facilities: Implications for Military Operations, Occasional Paper No. 14, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, May 2000
Smith, Derek D., Deterring America: Rogue States and the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, 2006
Speed, Roger and May, Michael, Dangerous Doctrine, 61 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists No. 2, March/April 2005, p. 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenwald, Nina, The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use, 53 International Organizations No. 3, Summer 1999, p. 433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tompkins, Joanne, How U.S. Strategic Policy Is Changing China's Nuclear Plans, 33 Arms Control Today No. 1, January/February 2003, p. 11Google Scholar
Tyson, Ann Scott, Nuclear Plan Changes Calculus of Deterrence, Christian Science Monitor, March 12, 2002, p. 1
,U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Chemical Munitions, 1 January through 30 June 2003
,U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, House Report 103–200, 1993, p. 427; Public Law 103–160, 107 Stat. 1946
,U.S. Department of Defense and Department of Energy, National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century, September 2008
,U.S. Government, Nuclear Posture Review (excerpts), submitted to Congress on December 31, 2001, excerpts released January 8, 2002, p. 7, available at www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm
U.S. Government, National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, December 2002
,U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, Joint Publication 3–12, Final Coordination (2) draft, March 15, 2005
,U.S. Secretary of Defense in conjunction with Secretary of Energy, Report to Congress on the Defeat of Hard and Deeply Buried Targets, July 2001
Wilk, Peter, Stanlick, Sarah, Butcher, Martin, McCally, Michael, Helfand, Ira, Gould, Robert, and Pastore, John, Projected Casualties among U.S. Military Personnel and Civilian Populations from the Use of Nuclear Weapons Against Hard and Deeply Buried Targets, Physicians for Social Responsibility, May 2005
Woolf, Amy F, Congress and Nuclear Weapons: Review and Oversight of Policies and Programs, 14 Nonproliferation Review No. 3, November 2007, p. 499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Robert S. and Kristensen, Hans M., U.S. Nuclear Warheads, 1945–2009, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 2009, p. 72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Stephen I., Four Trillion Dollars and Counting, 51 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists No. 6, November/December 1995, p. 32Google Scholar
Norris, Robert S. and Kristensen, Hans M., The U.S. Nuclear Stockpile, Today and Tomorrow, 63 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists No. 5, September/October 2007, p. 60Google Scholar
Norris, Robert S. and Kristensen, Hans M., U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2008, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April 2008, p. 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pincus, Walter, Senate Bill Requires Study of New Nuclear Weapons, Washington Post, June 12, 2000, p. A2
Myers, Steven Lee, The Targets: Jets Said to Avoid Poison Gas Sites, New York Times, December 18, 1998, p. A1Google Scholar
Mello, Greg, New Bomb, No Mission, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June, 1997, p. 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Amy and Barrie, Douglas, Dig for Victory, Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 11, 2006, p. 52
Nelson, Robert W., Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons, 10 Science and Global Security No. 1, 2002, p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Robert W., Nuclear ‘Bunker Busters’ Would More Likely Disperse Than Destroy Buried Stockpiles of Biological and Chemical Agents, 12 Science and Global Security No. 1–2, 2004, p. 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, Michael and Haldeman, Zachary, Effectiveness of Nuclear Weapons against Buried Biological Agents, 12 Science and Global Security No. 1–2, 2004, p. 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, Thomas W. and Howard, Joseph S., Countering the Threat of the Well-Armed Tyrant: A Modest Proposal for Small Nuclear Weapons, 19 Strategic Review No. 4, Fall 1991, p. 34Google Scholar
Tompkins, Joanne, How U.S. Strategic Policy Is Changing China's Nuclear Plans, 33 Arms Control Today No. 1, January/February 2003, p. 11, 13Google Scholar
Tyson, Ann Scott, Nuclear Plan Changes Calculus of Deterrence, Christian Science Monitor, March 12, 2002, p. 1
Payne, Keith B., The Nuclear Jitters, National Review, June 30, 2003, p. 22, 24Google Scholar
Woolf, Amy F., Congress and Nuclear Weapons: Review and Oversight of Policies and Programs, 14 Nonproliferation Review No. 3, November 2007, p. 499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Elaine M., More Accurate U.S. Nuclear Trident Faces Controversy, Global Security Newswire, August 17, 2007
Hobson, David, remarks to National Academy of Sciences 2004, quoted in Daryl G. Kimball, Nuclear Bunker-Buster (As We Know It) Is Dead, Arms Control Association Analysis, October 26, 2005

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×