Citing Russia, Trump Administration Seeks ‘More Usable’ Nuclear Weapons

(ANTIWAR.COM) — The Trump Administration’s nuclear plan is increasingly public, with its unclassified summary providing confirmation of all the concerns that have already been set out in recent weeks, that the administration intends the development of new, lower-yield nuclear weapons that they believe would be more usable than the current arsenal.

Though Defense Secretary James Mattis denied that the new weapons would lower the nuclear threshold, the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review says the exact opposite, revealing that they view such weapons as useful in retaliation against non-nuclear attacks or other “extreme circumstances.”

The document tries to justify this as a way to deter Russia, arguing that Russia doesn’t view the current US posture as threatening enough, and that getting the US even more weapons, including smaller-yield ones they might well use more readily, would really intimidate them.

In reality, low-yield weapons would be useless with respect to Russia, who has its own large nuclear arsenal, making nuclear exchanges unthinkable. Such weapons are primarily for attacking nations without nuclear retaliation capabilities.

That would include nuclear attacks on non-nuclear states, in keeping with the US refusal to establish itself as never carrying out a nuclear first strike, as well as potentially used in a sneak attack against North Korea.

Still, Russia tends to be a successful rationale for new spending, no matter how unreasonable, and may deflect long-standing concerns that this scheme is actually just making nuclear weapons more usable, and as a result, making nuclear warfare more common in the future.

By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / ANTIWAR.COM / Report a typo

 This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.
Since you’re here…

…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.

If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us

    6

COMMENTS

2

You must be logged in to post a comment.


  • Joyce Gaynor

    We know tactical nukes always result in use of strategic nukes. These weapons will never be used. Having them or seeking to have them is just how the mutually assured destruction game is played and has been played for 70 years.


  • Facebook Profile photo
    Carrie Marc

    #Idiocracy .. Tell me they do know there is no such thing as smaller nukes? All this war war war and I don’t see chump or his family on the front lines.. Too rich to fight their own idiot wars?