Follow us on social

50323143236_1f6ab31dd1_o-scaled

Why Trump’s secret weapon isn’t so secret and not much of a weapon

The only thing Trump did by bragging to Bob Woodward about what he thought was some new secret weapon is put the US on a course of a dangerous nuclear arms race.

Analysis | Washington Politics

Donald Trump’s reveal to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward of a new, secret nuclear weapon would be a major security breach and a trigger to an accelerated nuclear arms race, if true.

In an interview with Woodward on December 5, 2019, Trump said, “I have built a nuclear — a weapons system that nobody’s ever had in this country before. We have stuff that you haven’t even seen or heard about. We have stuff that Putin and Xi have never heard about before. There’s nobody — what we have is incredible.”

It is an amazing statement to a journalist and, thus, to our adversaries about a new U.S. military capability unlike anything Russia or China or anyone else has. 

“With that comment alone, the president has just launched a new nuclear arms race,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow warned this week. “That stray comment,” she added, “will drive the creation of new classes of previous unknown nuclear weapons by China and Russia.”

Fortunately, Trump’s claim is likely not true. There is no new super weapon.

Other officials did confirm the existence of a secret new weapons system, as Woodward reports, but they did not characterize it the same way as Trump did. Trump is almost certainly talking about a program that is not very secret and not much of a weapon.

While it’s true that the government doesn’t disclose everything about its weapons systems, it would be hard to hide a major new program. These take years to develop and require billions of dollars appropriated by Congress. By the time they go into production thousands or tens of thousands of people are involved. Trump could be referring to a new hypervelocity missile (a weapon that flies many times the speed of sound) or the new program to replace the B-2 bomber. Both are under development and have many classified aspects (including the huge budget of the new B-21 bomber). It is more likely, however, that he was talking about the new “low-yield” nuclear warhead now deployed on some U.S. strategic submarines.

The Trump administration pushed for this new weapon in its Nuclear Posture Review of February 2018. Despite determined efforts to block it, Congress approved funding for the program and the first one was manufactured in February 2019. But at the time of Trump’s interview with Woodward 10 months later, much was still classified about the program, including its deployment schedule.

A few weeks after Trump talked to Woodward, the USS Tennessee slipped into the waters off Kings Bay, Ga. to begin patrols beneath the surface of the Atlantic Ocean. For the first time, and in secret, it had this new warhead atop one or two of its 20 long-range ballistic missiles. The patrol remained secret until prominent nuclear weapons experts Hans Kristensen and William Arkin disclosed the deployment at the end of January 2020. The Pentagon confirmed the report a week later. So, as Trump claimed, it is likely that neither Putin nor Xi knew about the deployment of the new weapon at the time he talked to Woodward, though they certainly knew of the program.

The weapon, the W76-2 warhead, is the brainchild of nuclear war fighters who want to make nuclear weapons more usable. They fear that military and political leaders are “self-deterred” from using nuclear weapons because of the huge destruction they cause. Instead of a weapon that would destroy all of New York, for example, they wanted a weapon that would destroy just midtown. Instead of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, a smaller weapon would kill thousands. This, they believe, makes it more acceptable and could break the nuclear taboo that has held for 75 years.

Such a bomb could be used against hardened targets such underground centrifuge plants. Or, in the twisted logic of nuclear war-fighters, it could “de-escalate” a crisis by destroying only part of a city instead of vaporizing it entirely, thus encouraging retreat or surrender. Some also hope this weapon will help justify the continuation of a massively expensive nuclear complex increasingly irrelevant to 21st century threats.

The new W76 has a yield of five kilotons, or five thousand tons of TNT. This is many times the size of even the largest conventional weapon (the 11-ton Massive Ordnance Air Blast), but still only one-third the size of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. By nuclear standards this is tiny. It is 1/20 to 1/90 the size of the hydrogen bombs that are carried by most of the missiles on the Trident submarines, which clock in with yields of 90 kilotons and 455 kilotons.

The nuclear laboratories could produce this new weapon so quickly because it was a relatively easy modification of the existing W76-1 warhead.

Inside every big bomb is a little bomb. Every hydrogen bomb has a supply of hydrogen isotopes that are fused into helium by the heat, pressure, and radiation of a smaller fission bomb, like the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki. Fusing atoms releases many times the energy of splitting them, up to millions of tons of TNT. Take away the hydrogen fuel and you are left with a basic atomic bomb. That is what the labs did. It is the only weapon that Trump initiated that he could produce in his first term. It is no wonder that he wanted to brag about it.

The total system is, indeed, “incredible.” The Trident D-5 missiles can fly thousands of miles in minutes, striking targets smaller than a football field anywhere on Earth. But the “low-yield” warhead is fairly common. Many nuclear-armed nations have these smaller weapons. The United States already has over 1,000 weapons of this size carried by cruise missiles or dropped by airplanes. It is not, as Trump claimed, a weapon that “nobody’s ever had in this country before.” We have had low-yield atomic bombs since the 1950s.

What is correct is that we never before deployed these weapons on strategic systems like land- or sea-launched ballistic missiles. That is because it is a dumb idea. It duplicates a capability we already have and, if used, could trigger a full-scale nuclear war, not stop one. An adversary would see the missile flying towards its territory and would have no idea of the size of the warhead. There would be tremendous pressure for China or Russia to launch a retaliatory strike, as they have trained and planned to do.

In sum, it is unlikely that Trump stupidly revealed the existence of some magic weapon system that would give the United States nuclear dominance and make our adversaries quake. But Maddow is right — bragging about nuclear weapons to impress a journalist is pathetic but also very dangerous. It encourages each nuclear-armed nation to counter the other’s capabilities, real or imagined.  

Nuclear braggadocio doesn’t make us stronger. It makes us less safe and more afraid.

President Donald J. Trump delivers his remarks during a press conference Monday, Sept. 7, 2020, on the North Portico of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)
Analysis | Washington Politics
||
Diplomacy Watch: A peace summit without Russia
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

Diplomacy Watch: How close were Russia and Ukraine to a deal in 2022?

QiOSK

The RAND corporation’s Samuel Charap and Johns Hopkins University professor Sergey Radchenko published a detailed timeline and analysis of the talks between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators just after the Russian invasion in February 2022 that could have brought the war to an end just weeks after it had begun.

Much of the piece confirms or elucidates parts of the narrative that had previously been reported. In the spring of 2022, the two sides appeared relatively close to a deal, one that, according to the authors, would “have ended the war and provided Ukraine with multilateral security guarantees, paving the way to its permanent neutrality and, down the road, its membership in the EU.”

keep readingShow less
Blinken ignores State recommendation to sanction Israeli units: Report
L-R: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands after their meeting at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem, on Monday, January 30, 2023. DEBBIE HILL/Pool via REUTERS

Blinken ignores State recommendation to sanction Israeli units: Report

QiOSK

State Department leadership is ignoring a recommendation from an internal panel to stop giving weapons to several Israeli military and police units due to credible allegations of serious human rights abuses, according to a major new report from ProPublica.

The alleged violations, which occurred before the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, include extrajudicial killings, sexual assault of a detainee, and leaving an elderly Palestinian man to die after handcuffing and gagging him. Secretary of State Antony Blinken received the recommendation in December but has yet to take action to prevent the units involved from receiving American weapons.

keep readingShow less
Europe's hopelessly murky, mixed messaging on restraint

Ursula von der Leyen (CDU, l), President of the European Commission, stands at the lectern in the European Parliament building. Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, sits in the background. The EU Parliament is debating the attack on Israel and preparations for the EU summit at the end of October. REUTERS

Europe's hopelessly murky, mixed messaging on restraint

Europe

The EU has condemned Iran’s April 14 drone and missile attack against Israel conducted in response to Israel’s lethal bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria on April 1. However, while the condemnation is unanimous, EU officials and individual member states have different positions on the issue.

Those differences broadly reflect the pre-existing divisions on the Middle East since the war in Gaza started last October. Even though the EU is united in its calls for restraint and de-escalation, these divisions are limiting the diplomatic role Europe could play in actually bringing those objectives closer to reality.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest