The Pentagon plans to develop a new, powerful nuclear bomb known as the B61-13, which would be 24 times as powerful as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
The proposed bomb could yield an explosive force ranging from 10 to 360 kilotons.
Should the U.S. government pursue such a weapon?
The plans for a new nuclear weapon were unveiled approximately one year after the publication of the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review. This review advocated for a more significant U.S. nuclear arsenal in order to compete with the expected growth of China’s nuclear stockpile by the year 2030.
China’s nuclear arsenal has been expanding rapidly, surpassing previous estimates, with more than 500 operational nuclear warheads as of May. This development has raised concerns and prompted the U.S. to consider enhancing its own nuclear capabilities in response.
Today, the @DeptofDefense said it will pursue a modern variant of the B61 nuclear gravity bomb. Pending Congressional authorization & appropriation, it will provide the President enhanced capabilities to respond to a rapidly evolving security environment.https://t.co/MLtu4kVZud
— United States Strategic Command (@US_STRATCOM) October 27, 2023
Key points:
Escalating Nuclear Arms Race: China recently announced its intention to double its nuclear arsenal by 2030, prompting concerns of an escalating nuclear arms race.
U.S. Nuclear Posture Review: The Pentagon’s plans for the new nuclear bomb were revealed as a response to the 2021 Nuclear Posture Review, which advocated for a larger U.S. nuclear arsenal to compete with China’s projected stockpile.
Cost and Capabilities: The B61-13 bomb would cost $10 billion to develop and would offer a wide range of explosive force options. It could potentially cause massive destruction, with estimates of casualties ranging from hundreds of thousands to over a million people.
A 50-kiloton nuke set off in the middle of Manhattan would kill an estimated 270,000 people, injure an estimated 470,000 more, and send radioactive smoke as far away as Hartford, Connecticut, some 113 miles away. But, a 360-kiloton bomb, like the one that’s being discussed, set off in the same location, would kill an estimated 778,000, injure an estimated 1,045,000, and send a radioactive cloud almost to Lowell, Massachusetts, some 215 miles away.
Moreover, this new bomb would be capable of delivering instant mass destruction even deeper underground than previous bombs, perhaps with the ability to destroy bunkers.
Global Nuclear Stockpiles: The nuclear arsenals of the U.S., along with Russia, account for 89% of the world’s total stockpile. Some question the necessity of developing a new, more destructive weapon in this context.
Concerns About Stability: Some experts argue that pursuing such powerful and untested technologies could lead to a destabilizing situation and increase the risk of accidental or intentional nuclear conflict.
Call for Alternative Approaches: Perhaps America should focus on building mutual understanding and routes for risk reduction with other nuclear-armed countries, such as China. Perhaps the U.S. should press for improvements in domestic issues like healthcare, homelessness, and mental health instead of prioritizing nuclear capabilities.
Should Americans question the rationale behind developing a new, highly destructive nuclear bomb? And would addressing social and humanitarian issues be a more effective approach to global security and stability?
