Why America Does NOT Need Low Yield Nuclear Weapons. Do not let the authors of the Post’s Nov. 29 Op Ed advocating low-yield nuclear weapons scare you or mislead you. Much of what they say is wrong.

Why America Does NOT Need Low Yield Nuclear Weapons. 

Do not let the authors of the Post’s Nov. 29 Op Ed advocating low-yield nuclear weapons scare you or mislead you. Much of what they say is wrong.

By all measures of firepower and reach, US conventional forces are vastly superior to that of all other nations. The existing US nuclear arsenal is far greater than anything needed for deterrence.

While citing recent Russian and Chinese advances, the authors fail to mention the US has increased the accuracy of its own nuclear arsenal three-fold, giving it significant superiority. The notion that small nukes can be used tactically or “escalate to de-escalate” is nonsense. It was resoundingly put to rest by Daniel S. Geller’s definitive 1990 Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Crisis Escalation (subsequently cited by no less than 112 publications in the field).  His study demonstrates any use of nuclear weapons will not stop but further escalation.

In fact, the very name “low yield” nuclear device is wildly misleading.  By its nature, a nuclear blast is orders of magnitude greater than that of a conventional weapon. Its heat ignites everything combustible in a vast area surrounding the detonation, incinerating or suffocating all living things. The radiation produced continues to kill indiscriminately over space and time. Studies have shown even a limited exchange could shut down global agriculture

The authors correctly note we once had lots of small nuclear weapons. But we weren’t duped into giving them up while others retained them. We agreed with another nuclear power that they made us all less safe and got rid of them. 

The only way to end an arms race is to end it, not to spend our societies into ruin in an endless pursuit of nuclear superiority.  That was the lesson learned at Reykjavik in 1986.

Must we yet relearn that lesson?

Jerry Ross

On Nov 30, 2018, at 9:18 AM, Michelle Cunha < cunha.michelle@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-america-needs-low-yield-nuclear-warheads-now/2018/11/29/c83e0760-f354-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b289a6b9f337

A rebuttal to this article would seem to be in order.  Anyone?

Michelle 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MAPA Nuclear Disarmament" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mapa-nuclear-disarmament+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to mapa-nuclear-disarmament@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mapa-nuclear-disarmament/CANw-wEh_03949j-rR70pfQaVqRyLGchrzjTgAhB6xdRr_VTFjg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MAPA Nuclear Disarmament" group. 
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mapa-nuclear-disarmament+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. 
To post to this group, send email to mapa-nuclear-disarmament@googlegroups.com. 
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mapa-nuclear-disarmament/CANw-wEgX_pK0oo%3DJzhhd8WGJ4OeHyjgu1hwNbmAW4vVn3b9Aqg%40mail.gmail.com. 
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.