The Little Nukes That Got Away

What Obama's new weapons treaty left out.

BY DAVID E. HOFFMAN | APRIL 1, 2010

The Davy Crockett was one of the smallest nuclear weapons ever made by the United States. Built in the late 1950s, and designed for the battlefields of Europe to stop a possible Warsaw Pact invasion, the warhead looked like a watermelon, being only 30 inches long and weighing about 76 pounds. From a portable tripod launcher, it could be fired at the enemy as close as 1,000 feet or up to 13,000 feet away. It was a weapon for nuclear war at close range.

Today, the Davy Crockett system has long since been retired, and is now a neat museum piece. You can see a casing of the warhead at the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History in Albuquerque.

But the little nuclear watermelon is a reminder of the big work still to be done in arms control. The just-completed strategic weapons treaty that U.S. President Barack Obama will sign in Prague next week with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev does not cover smaller nuclear warheads in both arsenals that are a legacy of the Cold War -- the so-called battlefield, or tactical weapons.

The United States is believed to have about 200 tactical nukes in Europe, all of them B61 free-fall gravity bombs to be used with U.S. and allied tactical aircraft, out of 500 total tactical nukes in the active U.S. arsenal. The Russians are estimated to have about 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons, several hundred in the European part of the country and the remainder in central storage sites.

These smaller warheads have never been covered by a specific treaty, nor are they subject to the kind of verification that is used to prevent cheating in the agreements covering the long-range or strategic weapons, including the nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. What's more, they are relics of a bygone era, with no military usefulness. There is no longer a Warsaw Pact or a Soviet Union threatening a massive invasion across the Fulda Gap that would have to be stopped with a last-ditch decision to fire off the battlefield nukes.

Obama may dream of a world without nuclear arms, but it is with weapons  systems like these, which remain in place years after the Cold War, that his goals meet the unpleasant reality and the unfinished business of the past.

White House officials want everyone to rest assured: They'll make an effort to deal with tactical nuclear weapons in the next treaty. In fact, they mistakenly thought, a year ago, that the new START agreement would be a snap and they'd be moving on to the bigger challenges by now. But a closer look suggests that tactical nukes are going to be very, very hard to negotiate. That's why they are still around -- it is a tough one.

For years, experts have been warning about the dangers of tactical nukes. They could be a temptation for a terrorist diversion, small enough to be driven away in a truck. While it would be difficult to actually explode one, there was serious concern at the end of the Cold War about the thousands of Soviet-era tactical nuclear weapons. The warheads were vulnerable as Moscow hastily hauled them back into Russia in old train cars which lacked sophisticated alarms or armored blankets to protect the warheads from bullets or shrapnel. Although the warheads were deactivated, the headaches were immense, including a shortage of secure storage space to hold them once they got back into Russia. Eventually, the United States carried out a secret operation in which one of the Soviet model cars was shipped to Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico, which designed an upgrade.

Both Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President George H. W. Bush realized the urgency in late 1991 and unilaterally withdrew many of these weapons in the final months before the Soviet collapse. But they never sealed these pullbacks in a mutual arms control treaty, and there is no verification to this day.

Wikimedia Commons

 

David E. Hoffman is a contributing editor to the Washington Post and the author of The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy.

DILBERT DOGBERT

12:28 PM ET

April 4, 2010

DILBERT DOGBERT

Back in the day I worked for FMC Corp (Foolish Machinery and Comical Corp) designing M113 APC vehicle components. One project was this system. I heard from someone when it was canceled that the powers that be finally recognized it was not a good idea to put the control of nukes under enlisted men. It might not be a good idea to put it in the hands of the president.
Read "The Curve of Binding Energy" about Ted Taylor to get scared about nukes.
In a couple of years the blog "Make" will have an article on how to make nukes in your garage for fun and profit.
Enjoy!

 

ADRASTEIA

6:53 PM ET

April 5, 2010

Under the Control of Enlisted

Nuclear weapons are as "under the control of enlisted men (and women)" today as it was in the day of the Davy Crockett.

The W54 was an unsafe warhead. It had little shielding and no safety devices. The Davy Crockett was designed as a Fulda Gap defensive weapon and the W54 warhead was in the inventory until the 80's. By then, delivery systems were far superior, last-ditch Fulda Gap defensive weapons were no longer necessary, and weapons safety devices were vastly improved.

The President of the US has the legal authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. Weapons are designed, built, and dismantled by civilian authorities. The military is responsible for maintaining and deploying. And yes, enlisted personnel do the maintenance on weapons.

On a side note, the Army has not had nuclear weapons since 1992. Perhaps someone felt it wasn't a good idea for the Army to have control of nuclear weapons.

 

PIKADON

9:24 AM ET

April 5, 2010

Has the Author Considered...

...that while these weapons may have been conceived and developed for a war scenario that's now obsolete, they might come in handy for other conflicts in other places? Like in Iran or North Korea, perhaps?

 

DAVEINVA

12:52 PM ET

April 5, 2010

No military usefulness?

The author is wrong. Tactical weapons not only continue to serve as a confidence booster for allies (as noted in the piece), but they also serve as a scalable deterrent for unconventional attacks, i.e. counters to use of biological and chemical weapons. An enemy nation-state (or terrorist group supported by a nation-state) may employ those weapons against the U.S. and its allies; without tactical nuclear weapons, the U.S. is left with a choice between a purely conventional response or city-busters.

Also, as note elsewhere in the comments: tactical weapons may have utility in counter-WMD scenarios, such as those faced in Iran or North Korea. In the event of war with either, tactical nuclear weapons could be guaranteed to destroy protected weapons and facilities with far less collateral damage than strategic weapons. Without that intermediate capability, again, the U.S. is left with either conventional options that pose no threat to buried and protected targets, or the overkill of strategic weapons in the 100+ kiloton range.

 

KEITHEDWHITE

1:33 PM ET

April 5, 2010

How Crucial Is This Tactical-Nuke Gap?

Looking back on previous US-Russian arms deals the real test remains whether or not Obama gets these tactical nukes in the next deal. (And on a side-note, whether he'll opt for a treaty or executive agreement..)

But when it comes to the most important short-term events the 'New START' hopes to jump-start (the Nuclear Security Summit and the NPT conference), I think this omission does really to dull the role 'New START' has in putting pressure on P-5 members to put sanctions on Iran. Also, it further isolates an Iranian regime with ever-dwindling legitimacy.

More of this discussion can be found at www.proliferationpress.com.

 

ADRASTEIA

2:02 PM ET

April 5, 2010

Tactical Nukes

The B61 is tactical in name only. When maintained stateside, it is considered strategic. The B61 is not a small weapon like the Davy Crockett.

The terms tactical and strategic are used semantically these days, not to describe design. The US maintains no weapons the size of the Davy Crockett. In the cold war era, the US had artillary nukes and other small sized weapons. Not so today.

Another poster was correct when he mentioned that our weaopns in Europe give confidence to our NATO allies. They serve another purpose. If we use our nuclear stockpile to provide an "umbrella" it's less likely countries like Greece, Turkey, or Germany will develop their own nuclear weapons. This is the bedrock of counterproliferation.

The US had a prohibition on small nuclear weapons that was rescinded around 2004. George W. Bush made the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons a cornerstone of his policy, somewhat of a coincidence.

 

THRASYMACHUS

4:38 PM ET

April 5, 2010

Variable Yield

I don't know what the yield on the Davy Crockett was (presumably small enough for the operator to survive firing it at something just 1000 feet away), but most versions of the B61 have variable yields that can be set as low as 0.3 kilotons and as high as 170.

The low end of that spectrum is small enough to allow the weapon be used tactically, against specific military targets, although the only targets that I can imagine them being legitimately used against are other nukes.

 

ADRASTEIA

6:40 PM ET

April 5, 2010

Davy Crockett

The W54 in the Davy Crockett delivery system was a lower yield than the lowest B61 setting. I'm not sure it could be survived at 1,000 ft since the launcher for Davy Crockett threw it almost 2 miles from the launch point. Even at 1,000 ft, 30 tons equivalent TNT is pretty deadly.

However, the author implies the US has man-portable mini-nukes, which is not true. The W54 was also used in a "backpack nuke" configuration.

The B61 can only be delivered by fighter or bomber. By defining it and other nuclear weapons as "tactical" it releases them from strategic treaties. It's a name-game. The weapon may have a low enough yield to be used tactically but tactical delivery precision is another matter. The W54 in Davy Crockett or a SADM configuration could be placed very close to a dam, bridge, ship, or building.

 

SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMISATION LONDON

1:37 AM ET

April 19, 2010

search engine optimisation london

Your blog provided us with valuable information to work with..Each & every tips of your post are awesome.Thanks a bunch for sharing such a great and informative post with us. Keep blogging.
search engine optimisation london