Bush approves nuclear response (If Allied forces are attacked by Chemical Weapons)!

The Washington Times ^ | January 31, 2003 | By Nicholas Kralev

[vannrox]

A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks. Apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times.

The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force including potentially nuclear weapons to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies, the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.

[Charles Martel]

[dark_lord]

The MOAB itself weighs in at 21,000-pounds. A 30,000-pound weapon called Big BLU (Bomb Live Unit) is being developed.

Note that the "kiloton" rating just means 1000 tons. But the "ton" referred to is the explosive force of one ton of TNT. Modern explosives are much more powerful than TNT, which has an explosive yield of 700 calories per gram.

I have no idea how much more powerful the explosive warhead of the MOAB is compared to TNT. Anyone knowing that could then calculate the fraction of a "kiloton" that the MOAB produces in explosive force. For example, if the MOAB explosive were 5 times as powerful as TNT, knowing the MOAB explosive warhead weighs in at a bit more than 10 tons means that it would (hypothetically) be equivalent to 1/20 of a kiloton. (The MOAB weight has to be multiplied to produce an equivalent TNT "weight".)

Way smaller than a nuke.

[vannrox]

U.S. Nuclear Free-Fall Bombs

Nuclear Bomb	Yield	= to how many Hiroshima blasts	Type	Weight of Bomb
B28	70kt to 1.45 MT	4.6 - 95	Fusion	919kg-1152kg (2,026-2,540 lb)
B43	1MT	66.6	Fusion	934kg-971kg (2,060-2,141 lb)
B53	9MT	600	Fusion	4014kg (8,850 lb)
B57	5kT to 10kT	0.3 - 0.6	Fission	231kg-322kg (509-710 lb)
B61	10kT to 500kT	0.6 - 33.3	Boosted Fission	326kg-347kg (719-765 lb)
B83	1-2 MT	66.6-133.3	Fission	1092kg (2,407 lb)

       Bomb		      Yield    Type		Weight
       -------------------------------------------------------------
       B28	     70kt to 1.45MT    Fusion		919kg to 1152kg
       B43			1MT    Fusion		934kg to 971kg
       B53			9MT    Fusion		4014kg
       B57		5kT to 10kT    Fission		231kg to 322kg
       B61	       10kT to 100kT   Boosted Fission	326kg to 347kg
       B83			 MT    Fission		1092kg

Mods-3, -4, -10. The Mod-10 is a converted warhead. All have CAT F PALs and IHE. Each Mod has four yield options: The B61-3 (0.3, 1.5, 60, and 170 kilotons), the B61-4 (0.3, 1.5, 10, and 45 kilotons), and the B61-10 (0.3, 5, 10, and 80 kilotons).

The warheads to be disassembled over the next three years (through mid-1999) include the W79 army artillery warheads, the W55 for the SUBROC (submarine rocket), the W69 for the SRAM-A (short-range attack missile), the W56 Minuteman II warhead, and B61 Mod-2 and Mod-5 bombs. The W48 artillery shell (March 1996), the B61 Mod-0 bomb (June 1996), and the W70 for the Lance (February 1996) are warheads for which disassembly has been completed, or is nearly complete.

Warhead	Yield	Use	Year	Status	Remarks
W69	170	SRAM-A	Year	Status	Remarks
W55	Yield	Subroc	Year	Status	Remarks
W56	Yield	Minuteman II	Year	Status	Remarks
W70	Yield	Lance	Year	Status	Remarks
W48	Yield	Artillery shell	Year	Status	Remarks
W85	Yield	Pershing II	Year	Status	Remarks
W87	300	MX missile	Year	Status	Remarks
W79	Yield	Artillery shell	Year	Status	Remarks
W78	335	-	Year	Status	Remarks
W76	100	Trident I C-4, Trident II D-5 Mk-4	Year	Status	Remarks
W88	475	Trident II D-5 Mk-5	Year	Status	Remarks
W80-0	?	?	Year	Status	Remarks
W80-1	?	ALCM, ACM	Year	Status	Remarks
W62	170	-	Year	Status	Remarks
W28	1 Megaton	Hound dog missile	Year	Status	Remarks
W84	?	Ground-launch cruise missiles (GLCMs)	Year	Status	Remarks

The figures and numbers below are real world guess-estimates based on the averaging of data from many sources including Janes Defense Information Group, the the Russian Aviation Page and the MILNET Military Open Source Encyclopedia.  As such this data is not likely to agree with any single source

[vannrox]

AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile

• Year Deployed: 1991
• Dimensions: 6.35m length, .64m height, .70m width
• Weight: 1,250 kg
• Propulsion: F-112-WR-100 turbofan
• Speed: Unknown
• Range: 3,000 km
• Guidance: Inertial with laser radar
• Circular Error Probable: Unknown, probably 10-30m
• Warhead: W80
• Yield: 200 kilotons
• Locations: B-52H
• Number Deployed: ~460 missiles
• Primary Contractor: General Dynamics, Convair Division

The Advanced Cruise Missile is the follow-on to the ALCM. It entered into service in 1991, with 1,461 missiles planned, but the program was cut short and only 460 ACMs were produced. The ACM incorporates stealth features to reduce radar cross section and infrared signature and also has greater accuracy and longer range than its predecessor. Many details about this new system remain classified.

One justification put forward for the ACM was the specter of a similar Russian system purported to be in development. The AS-X-19 Koala was touted as a supersonic, long-range, stealthy cruise missile. It was also supposed to be ready for deployment in the early 1990s, though the program was cancelled around 1993. Ironically enough, the U.S. counterpart, the ACM, was cancelled only after several hundred missiles were produced.

Actually, the argument that the ACM was needed because of its improvements over the ALCM do not ring true. The range of the ALCM was better than had been originally reported (2,400 km), and the ACM (3,000 km range) offers little improvement. Likewise, the ACM's small increase in accuracy has no operational significance. The GAO has also concluded that the belief that the ALCM had low survivability, and required the ACM as a replacement, has not been demonstrated. However, given that the ACM has already been procured in large numbers, despite its large, superfluous expense, it will serve well to equip approximately half the the B-52H fleet under START II.

The Advanced Cruise Missile was built as a stealthy replacement for the AGM-86, but the end of the Cold War caused production to be curtailed, and only 461 were built. The ACM carries a W80-1 nuclear warhead (5Kt or 170-200 Kt yield), is 6.84m long with a 3.34m wingspan, weighs 1680kg and has a range of 3000km. It has a number of design features to minimise radar cross-section, including a minimal number of straight edges, low-power sensors, forward-swept wings, fuselage RAM, a flush inlet and shielded exhaust.
Nuclear Bombs

B61-7 10/66 sub to 350 yield # 350 The Mod-7 is a converted Mod-1 with a Cat D PAL IHE and several yield options up to 350 Kt; Weighs 763lb

B61-11 1996 sub to 350 yield # 50 Earth penetrator, modified B61 Mod-7 weighing an additional 450lbs

B83 6/83 low to 1,200 yield # 600 Strategic megaton-range bomb.
B61 Tactical Bomb 3/75 0.3 to 170 AF 400 Mods-3, -4, -10. THe Mod-10 is a converted W85 Pershing II warhead. All three Mods have Cat F PALS and IHE. Each Mod has four yield options. The B61-3 (0.3, 1.5, 60, and 170 Kt.), and the B61-10 (0.3, 5, 10, and 80 Kt).

AGM-86B/C ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missile)

Country of Origin: USA
Manufacturer: Boeing
Type / Purpose: long range air launched cruise missile
Date in Service: December 1982 for B June 1986 for C
Cost: 1.1 Million dollars

Power Plant: F-107-WR-10 turbofan engine built by Williams Research Corp.
Engine Thrust: 600lb (270 kg)

Max. Range: 1,500 miles (B) 1,200 miles (C)
Speed: 480 knots (890 km/h) about Mach 0.73
Length: 20 ft, 9 in (6.29m)
Diameter of missile body: 24.5 in (623 mm)
Wingspan: 12 ft (3.64m) when wings are fully extended.
Weight: 3,150 lb (1,420 kg)
Warhead: W80-1 nuclear warhead selectable in the 150-170 kiloton range (B)   992-pound high-explosive blast-fragmentation warhead (C)

[PianoMan]

A timely leak indeed.

[happygrl]

Agree with both your analysis.

As you are probably both aware, the initial date for WWII is now considered by many to be the 1931 invasion of Manchuria by Japan. Note the following chronology, including action ranging from Asia, to Africa, to Europe, with the accompanying demise of the League of Nations.

1931 09 18 Japan Invades Manchuria

1933 01 30 Hitler Becomes Chancellor Of Germany

1935 10 03 Italy Invades Abyssinia

1936 03 07 Germany Occupies The Rhineland

1936 07 15 Spanish Civil War Begins

1938 03 12 Germany Annexes Austria

1939 03 15 Germany Occupies Remainder Of Czechoslavakia

1939 03 28 Spanish Civil War Ends

1939 04 07 Italy Invades Albania

1939 08 23 Soviet - German Non - Agression Pact Signed

1939 09 01 Russia Invades Estonia

1939 09 01 Germany Invades Poland

[Petronski]

There are some analysts and historians who believe that as further time goes by, the two World Wars will be consider one long Thirty Years War, especially since the causes of the second are so tightly emmeshed with the precipitous and ill-considered conclusion of the first.

It's a compelling argument, but I don't know if I'm on board yet.

[BriarBey]

ROFL where do you people come up with this stuff!! It is hilarious!! (smiley head in microwave)

[EternalHope]

We won't use nukes just because Saddam tries to gas our troops. I doubt we would use nukes even if we were attacked with weapons of mass destruction (anthrax?) at home, and hundreds of thousands of people died.

The political fallout would be so bad that we would lose much more than we gained.

Basically, we can't/won't use nukes unless nukes are used on us first.

This political reality may be the reason MOAB was invented but has not been used. It gives us a very scary, very useable deterent.

[GOPJ]

You're right. The "in" crowd says he's innocent. No WMD's whatsoever... What's the big deal?

Chemical weapons? But Saddam hasn't any chemical weapons. That's what all the cool and groovy people think, anyway...

[mabelkitty]

It also sends a very strong message to China or the UN who think they are going to come in after us to "stop" our liberation.

Mess with the bull, get the horns.

[flamefront]

National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.

And leaked today.

Good, put the 'animals' on notice.

Lets see them show what they've got now.

Too much use of the term

Weapons of Mass Destruction

when what is really meant is not just buildings but

Weapons of mass annihilation

or

Weapons of Mass Murder,
as the President metnioned last weekend.

[flamefront]

Tactical

It also sounds like they are taking Sam Cohen's suggestions seriously to convert some existing weapons to smaller neutron weapons.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

The lowest reported tactical nuke yield I've seen herein is 0.3 kiloton, or equivalent to 300 tons of TNT. If the entire MOAB weighs just 10.5 tons, I doubt the explosive yield, in TNT equivalents, is greater than the entire weight of the bomb, even given more efficient explosives than TNT.

I don't think we should be equating a MOAB with a nuke. There are too many nuts out there, within and without our borders, who would be glad to claim that we used nukes if we drop a MOAB and pronounce it, erroneously, as having the same effect as a small nuke.

[Dark Wing]

ping

[CCWoody]

This appears to be setting the stage for use of the new MOAB, which may have the destructive capacity of a tactical nuke, but without the follow-on radiation.

I would tend to be in agreement with you that a proportional response to the use of Chemical Weapons on us would be the use of either the BLU-82 or the MOAB by us. I also believe that a proportional response could be the use of nuclear artillery and other tactical devices. I tend to think that the nukes would be the lesser option as our stated goal is Iraqi liberation and not Iraqi contamination.

And these Fuel Air Bombs make nice A-bomb looking mushroom clouds to strike terror in the heart of the enemy.

I must point out though, that the BLU-82 and the MOAB as well doesn't have the kill capabilities that have been advertised here on FR. How do I know this. Well, I happen to have as a fellow engineer of mine, a retired Army Engineer Colonel who dealt with the use of this kind of weapon to clear minefields. Not that I would want to be caught in the kill radius, mind you. I just happen to know that it really isn't as big as you might think.

I also find the lead article suspect.

Woody.

[RedhairRedhair]

ROENTGEN EQUIVALENT MAN

[The Vast Right Wing]

Thank-you, mighty fine posting!

[two23]

(smiley head in microwave)

It's a keeper, huh? LOL

[steve-b]

What would it matter to the Baathists. They are dead men walking anyway.

The people in the field who would have to "push the button" to carry out such an order are not in that position -- they're ordinary officers who have a reasonable hope of mercy if captured... unless they commit this war crime.