Miniaturizing atomic bombs on precision delivery platforms will provide new tactical options for war planners (miniature bombs are not new. The US has SADM tactical backpack nukes for generations now. A given mission operates as 2 six man teams, 2 Kiloton devices, 2 triggers). This development will increase the likelihood of their use in conventional war settings. It will also extend the time-range of diplomacy but provide a false fail safe ('We have this bomb now, therefore we can bypass normal conventional failure clues in diplomacy where nations might otherwise recognize diplomatic failure and choose to end negotiations and move to war."). Recent Iranian negotiations/capitulation are a perfect example. Previously it was argued that `the red line had passed and the US would have to act before Iran went underground with R&D.' It was argued that 'the US possesses powerful bunker busters and therefore we can extend the diplomatic window much further as the US retains this tool.' This is risky calculation and with this new device such a window could be extended even further, long past where the tactical advantage belonged to the US, with or without such a munition.

This device was created because it could be. This bomb will increase the likelihood of its use. This bomb will provide an additional tactical advantage to the US. Releasing this information is clearly intended to placate Mideast 'allies' and unsettle the North Koreans.

hmmm... the world isn't "nuclear free", so what's this all about? threat to what?

Though North Korea is/can be a problem with regards to nuclear weapons, there are much bigger problems out there:

http://ntiindex.org/progress-challenges/eliminating-nuclear-materials/

The terrorist threat has expanded dramatically since the end of the Cold War. Today, nearly 2,000 metric tons of weapons-usable nuclear materials—highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium—remain spread across hundreds of sites in 25 countries around the globe. Some of that material is poorly secured.

All it takes to build a bomb is enough highly enriched uranium to fill a five-pound bag of sugar or a quantity of plutonium the size of a grapefruit.

..............

At the release of NTI’s inaugural index in 2012, 32 countries had weapons-usable nuclear materials, defined as one kilogram or more of the materials needed for a weapon. Only two years later, seven of those countries have removed all or most of the material from their territories: Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Mexico, Sweden, Ukraine and Vietnam.

I don't understand. Why would a weapon like this, designed to take out underground nuclear sites, be a threat to a nuclear free world? Last thing we need is for North Korea to advance it's nuclear weapons. And then potentially sell them off to various other countries.

Ah Craigt,Either they felt that they needed a bit of sensationalism in their headlines or like many of the uneducated they have total fear of The US possessing a large number of atomic warheads.If they really knew how many,,they would crap their pants..

I don't understand. Why would a weapon like this, designed to take out underground nuclear sites, be a threat to a nuclear free world? Last thing we need is for North Korea to advance it's nuclear weapons. And then potentially sell them off to various other countries.

Ah Craigt,Either they felt that they needed a bit of sensationalism in their headlines or like many of the uneducated they have total fear of The US possessing a large number of atomic warheads.If they really knew how many,,they would crap their pants..

Luckily, most are held by 2 countries. The US and Russia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

Again, it's the rogue state that gets their hands on this technology, or material, that's the concern. Either using it themselves or passing it along to terrorist organizations willing to pay big money for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

By 2002, Pakistan had admitted that North Korea had gained access to Pakistan's nuclear technology in the late 1990s.

We have a nuke that will blow up your nuke & then we will be the only ones with a nuke. Who's got the biggest dick contest. The only reason the yanks do this is so they can interfere with other countries. We will be world leader whether you like it or not. We have nukes you don't!!!!!!!!!!!!!

German public news channel reported last year 20 of these "small" or tactical weapons will be delivered to Germany this year, having already been approved by Chancellor Merkel for use by the German Air Force as well as US Air Forces.

An unstated number are already in Turkey, another Nato ally.

That pretty much covers the borders with Europe of Putin's Russia which has been boasting regularly about how much Russia remains a mighty nuclear power and sending its bombers around the borders of Nato countries to include USA and Canada.

That the CCP has also 'miniaturised' nuclear warheads to fit its cruise missiles and intends to introduce them into its South China Sea aggressions to "tip the balance" there shows the nature of their territorial designs in the region.

CCP will likely menace Japan it its aggressions in the East Sea over islands there, to include CCP's claim Okinawa belongs to China. CCP claims the northern third of India. Then there's Taiwan, which holds its election tomorrow in which the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party is expected to sweep to the presidency and is likely win the parliament.

Extrapolating CCP's territorial aggressions in the region to global designs is 100% realistic; true. CCP is stupid to think US is in decline and CCP China is on the ascendency. It is CCP that is crashing as are the Brics, not the USA or the West.

These are dangerous people in Beijing and in Moscow. Iran needs to take notice.

Edited January 16, 201610 yr by Publicus

The US seriously needs to reassert its position as a world power...by unilateral abolition of its nuclear weapons.

Can anyone think this would make the world more dangerous?

Only safer for all of us...

you cant turn the clock back, these weapons are there and not only that,the knowledge how to build them wont go away.

The US seriously needs to reassert its position as a world power...by unilateral abolition of its nuclear weapons.

Can anyone think this would make the world more dangerous?

Only safer for all of us...

you cant turn the clock back, these weapons are there and not only that,the knowledge how to build them wont go away.

Exactly.

If all countries were to destroy their nuclear stockpiles the next nuclear arms race would begin a second later.Just this time all countries would be starting at the beginning. Anyone care to guess who would be the odds on favorite to win that race?

Edited January 16, 201610 yr by mopar71