"Nuclear precision weapons"
Now that the madness is mostly over, I have some time to catch up on reading my newspaper.
Last week, one article in De Standaard talked about the nuclear weapons on Belgian soil which officially didn't exist (until wikileaks proved otherwise) and which are now apparently going to be modernized. The newer model would be "nuclear precision weapons".
Ignoring the question of whether today's world still requires nuclear bombs (this may or may not be true, I don't care), I question the logic which leads to that phrase. A nuclear weapon is a weapon of mass destruction. By definition, a weapon of mass destruction causes collateral damage. By definition, a precision weapon is a weapon that does not cause collateral damage—or, at the very least, where every effort is made to limit the amount of collateral damage.
Even the very first nuclear bombs were capable of destroying entire cities. Today's nuclear weapons, even the smaller ones, are far more powerful than those.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not a peace activist. In fact, I have been contracted by companies who produce military equipment, and don't feel bad about that. But to claim that it is possible to create "nuclear precision weapons" is to deceive oneself. A nuclear weapon is not very precise.
Not the mention the bit where the official position of the Belgian government is still one of denial.
It's utterly unacceptable that the people have not had the opportunity to decide (either directly or through their elected representatives) if they want these weapons here or not. The denial (despite the fact that unofficialy it's clear as they that they're present) and lies about them precude meaningful debate.
Maybe they mean they're more likely to hit their targets? Even if it is a big one. So a non-precise weapon you aim for a city, but it hits the southern suburbs instead. The precise one lands exactly where you wanted it to go.
Sure the radius is the same, but where the centre is where you wanted it to be. Just a different take on precision. I'm sure whoever it could land on would appreciate it.
It is not on 'the list' yet : http://www.oxymoronlist.com/oxymora-p/ although 'Precision Bombing' is
cheers, paul
Maybe they are now precise in that they cluster bomb drop the nuclear warheads in such arrangement that they'll destroy less area outside of the exact borders of the country being targeted?
In the end, individuals and individual rights are passé in military establishment. Entire countries is the smallest granularity being considered.
As far as I know the topic, there are two ways of precision for warheads in general and nuclear warheads in particular: 1) increase probability of the detonation happening exactly where you want it to, this includes guidance, AA countermeasures and bunker penetration before detonation; 2) modify and shape the detonation itself to be better suited for the target.
For a nuclear bomb there are even more knobs to tweak such as to affect not only yield, speed and shape of the detonation, but also adjust radioactivity and longetivity of the fallout.
So in theory it is possible to create a nuclear bunker buster bomb that would fly as a cruise missile, avoid incoming fire, with >90% probability fly into a typical window, then penetrate a couple meters of concrete and after that explode in such a way that most of the radiation and fallout are directed into the bunker and even stuff that escapes decays so rapidly that the building is safe to enter after a week or two (and some have claimed such things actually exist).