Leaked Pentagon Document on Mini Nukes and Treaty Challenges

February 20, 2003 10:32 AM

Mini Nukes - Major Treaty Threats. "A leaked Pentagon document has confirmed that the US is considering the introduction of a new breed of smaller nuclear weapons designed for use in conventional warfare. Such a move would mean abandoning global arms treaties." The document was made available by The Los Alamos Study Group, which comments "It is impossible to overstate the challenge these plans pose to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the existing nuclear test moratorium, and US compliance with Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which is binding law in the US....These plans deserve outrage – first in the United States, and throughout the world. It may or may not be obvious that if allowed to proceed further -- especially in the present jingoistic atmosphere now prevailing in Washington -- the process outlined here will be quite hard to stop. "
posted by fold_and_mutilate (26 comments total)

The Los Alamos group also notes:

On July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judicial branch of the United Nations, issued its advisory opinion, The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. The ICJ found 1) that the threat or use of nuclear weapons "would generally be contrary" to humanitarian and other international law regulating the conduct of warfare, and 2) that under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other international law states are obligated to "bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.


Background documents:

ADVISORY OPINION 1996 July 8; General List No.95 on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons by International Court of Justice.

COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY

Nukes on Trial


Let's see. Concerns about nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and violations of international agreements. Now where have we heard that?

I wish I could say that the hypocrisy of some rogue states like the United States never fails to amuse...but there is nothing funny about this whatsoever.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:36 AM on February 20, 2003

So is the US actively building these mini-nukes or is it merely a consideration that might be explored further?

And if nukes are made small enough to yield less power than a run of bombers carrying conventional weaponry, then is still a 'weapon of mass destruction'?
posted by PenDevil at 10:46 AM on February 20, 2003

pendevil - from the article:

US government officials have confirmed the authenticity of the document, but say that it covers "very long range planning" and "what-if scenarios".
posted by probablysteve at 10:51 AM on February 20, 2003

PenDevil: This depends on your definition of WoMD. As far as the U.S. is concerned (according to that link), it is defined as "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons." By this definition, these 5 kiloton nukes would definitely be WoMD.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:53 AM on February 20, 2003

Nukes designed for conventional warfare are nothing new.
posted by Cyrano at 10:55 AM on February 20, 2003

What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave (...)
Total war makes no sense in an age (...) when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by the wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn. (...)
Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
Address by President Kennedy at American University
on a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
June 10, 1963
posted by matteo at 11:03 AM on February 20, 2003

the Guardian did a piece on this last year

also, useful information on bunker busters

this can only blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear warfare. bad idea
posted by gravelshoes at 11:04 AM on February 20, 2003

Yes, this is a line I personally don't think should be crossed, even if the nuke only had the power of a hand grenade.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:13 AM on February 20, 2003

I think I'm suffering from outrage overload.
posted by RylandDotNet at 11:44 AM on February 20, 2003

On Bush's policy of preemption, tonight's Frontline looks interesting.
posted by homunculus at 11:46 AM on February 20, 2003

I'm being as cynical and pessimistic as I can but these guys just keep lowering the bar on me!

Can we call Godwin on the Bush cabal yet and stop their madness?

Any buyer regrets out there now O' Supporters Of All Things Duhbya?
posted by nofundy at 11:54 AM on February 20, 2003

Nukes designed for conventional warfare are nothing new.

Took the words right out of my mouth. When did this report leak, 1952?

The thing that is shocking and outrageous is not that they would develop these things, which they did 50 years ago, but that it was Dubya's dad that agreed in 1991 that: All nuclear artillery projectiles, nuclear land mines, and nuclear warheads for nonstrategic missiles (Frogs, Scuds, SS-21), will be destroyed.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:17 PM on February 20, 2003

All hail AgendaFilter, where the axes are getting so thin you can see through them!
posted by jammer at 12:18 PM on February 20, 2003

Gee and I thought depleted uranium was bad...
posted by aaronscool at 12:35 PM on February 20, 2003

I agree with pardonyou?: this line should not be crossed.

jammer, I have no idea what you're trying to say, but this is as good a political front-page post as I've seen in a while, and f&m kept his opinions off the front page, sticking them at the end of the [more inside]. You have a problem with that?
posted by languagehat at 12:38 PM on February 20, 2003

This was a decent political post, but it was still a political post, and one with an obvious slant to it. I long for the MetaFilter of 2 or 3 years ago, when the majority of posts were cool, fun, or interesting websites, not another iteration of the Junior Debate Hour.

Not like anything's going to change.
posted by jammer at 12:55 PM on February 20, 2003

Time to invest in Lockheed and Raytheon. Buy now!
posted by homunculus at 1:06 PM on February 20, 2003

Yeah, this is definitely old news, I'm afraid to say. I believe "bunker busters" was the buzz-word for a while, or "low-yield nukes." The administration has been pushing them since day one.
posted by zekinskia at 1:09 PM on February 20, 2003

On the other hand, the radiation might produce super-heroes with cool powers. On the other hand, the radiation might produce super-villains.

Stupid other hand.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:11 PM on February 20, 2003

Newsflash: What do you think the US was doing in Western Europe for all those years under the guise of deterrent theory? Pollomacho's first link says it all.
posted by Tystnaden at 1:15 PM on February 20, 2003

Especially the photo if I do say so myself!
posted by Pollomacho at 1:24 PM on February 20, 2003

Ty Webb, I think that's one hand too many. Have you already fallen victim to the mutation-producing radiation?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:25 PM on February 20, 2003

I have several other hands. Just as I have a few brighter sides.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:29 PM on February 20, 2003

This was a decent political post, but it was still a political post, and one with an obvious slant to it. I long for the MetaFilter of 2 or 3 years ago, when the majority of posts were cool, fun, or interesting websites, not another iteration of the Junior Debate Hour.

2-3 years ago, the world seemed like a safer place, foreign policy seemed more deftly handled and less potentially explosive at any rate. It was easier to limit focus to Zombo Com or Wait All Day and laugh, or just read a Malcom Gladwell essay and discuss, or enthuse about Moveable Type and Grey Matter, or get excited about the latest writing at ftrain or McSweeney's or The White Shoe Irregular or whatever you think is the best of the web. But now, the web contains an awful lot about the Iraq issue and other political issues -- and while some of it is dreck, some of it really is the best of the web. Often despite the fact that it's political.

I know I'm different from some other MeFi'ers in that I actually enjoy the way it digs up information and handles political debates, as well as Russian synthesizer links and information about squating platforms for toilets and flash games and the like. That's because I see politics as part of life, and therefore, part of the web, and right now, so is the Iraq issue. MeFi doesn't need to ban poltics/iraq outright, its members just need to observe the ideal of digging up the best of what's on the web -- whether it's about about politics or iraq or penguins or pancake-wearing-bunnies or content-management or xml or economics or U2 or whatever.
posted by namespan at 5:18 PM on February 20, 2003

More Missile-Defense Madness - Bush's latest ploy for a system we don't even need.

Between this and the new mini-nukes, it looks like the "New Triad" is coming along nicely.
posted by homunculus at 5:27 PM on February 20, 2003

Robot Wisdom's title for f&m's first link led me here.

RQ-1 Predator + mini-nuke=Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy
Armageddon by way of oversized model airplane. And note that everyone in the Axis of Evil are showing interest in these. I have been led to understand that NORAD's radar can't identify incoming cruise missles, although this seems incredible to me.
posted by y2karl at 7:07 PM on February 20, 2003