The Reliability of U.S. Nuclear Arsenal and Its Implications
The United States nuclear arsenal, a cornerstone of global strategic stability, consists of various types of weapons with different reliability issues. This article examines the reliability of these weapons, focusing on 'dud' warheads and the broader implications for strategic nuclear policy.
Introduction to U.S. Nuclear Weapons
When an American nuclear weapon is deliberately triggered, several outcomes are possible. The first is a precise detonation as designed. In contrast, dud warheads, often referred to as 'failed detonations,' represent a significant concern within the U.S. nuclear arsenal. These duds can manifest in various ways, from a full failure to detonate, a partial detonation, to an energetic implosion without achieving a critical mass.
Types of Dud Warheads
1. Complete Failure to Detonate:
In some cases, the weapon fails to detonate altogether, leading to the second outcome, a complete failure to produce any fusion or critical mass.
2. Partial Detonation:
Components, such as the chemical explosive elements, may detonate partially, but without achieving critical mass. This failure results in a significant explosion, but without the expected nuclear fallout, making it a highly destructive yet failed event.
3. Energetic Implosion:
In one instance, during an atmospheric test, an implosion occurred, but due to a malfunction, no fusion reaction took place. The result was a multi-kiloton blast with significant energy release but without the expected secondary fission or nuclear fallout.
Historical Examples and Statistics
Historically, dud warheads have been recorded in both Russian and American underground tests, where their effects were safely contained. The first known atmospheric test where a nuclear device failed to achieve critical mass occurred, and it was also noted in two instances due to aircraft crashes. These events highlight the inherent risks and unreliability within the arsenal.
During the 1970s, the dud rate for U.S. weapons was estimated to be about one in sixty detonations. However, as they age, the materials deteriorate, leading to a significantly higher failure rate. This has been highlighted in a study conducted two years ago, which found that none of the U.S. nuclear assets are considered reliable.
Strategic Nuances and Implications
Despite the existence of these duds, the triad (land-based, sea-based, and air-based nuclear deterrence) has become a cornerstone of U.S. security policy. However, the reliability and utility of this approach are increasingly being questioned. Fixed land-based missiles and bombers at known air bases represent a vulnerability, as they can become attractive targets for enemy nuclear strikes, increasing the pressure to quickly launch nuclear weapons to avoid losing them.
Five decades of nuclear history have undermined the foundational assumptions that have guided U.S. nuclear policy. The original idea that nuclear weapons can deter non-nuclear attacks is false, as demonstrated by their repeated failure to prevent or respond to non-nuclear threats. Similarly, the hypothesis that nuclear weapons deter nuclear attacks lacks empirical support, as there is no evidence that nuclear deterrence has influenced decision-making in any reported conflict.
Future Directions and Recommendations
There is a pressing need to reassess the strategic value and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Decisions to procure new generations of nuclear weapons should be made with increased wisdom, ensuring that the investment does not deplete resources needed for conventional forces, which remain vital. Future policy should focus on refining nuclear deterrence strategies and ensuring that the U.S. can respond effectively to both traditional and emerging security threats.
By embracing a more nuanced and prudent approach to nuclear policy, the United States can enhance both its strategic capabilities and its commitment to maintaining global peace and security.