Sagepaper

For decades, people have had curiosity about how to make nuclear weapons. If a weapon can be made, people have wondered about delivery systems. Most curious amateurs never think about how to make a nuclear target. I will do a brief review of nuclear strategy, then focus on target-making.

An atomic bomb is good for some things, but not for others. What it is best at doing is instantly obliterating a circular area around "ground zero," its actual location of detonation. It also produces radioactive fall-out, but that is not always a desirable thing. To help us balance the blast and radioactive effects, we and other nuclear powers have developed a variety of types of nuclear weapon. Strategically, they are very different, but if you are to be at "ground zero," you really needn't worry about the distinctions.

So, we have little nuclear weapons that can be deployed on a battlefield, and used by artillery or aircraft. These are called, "tactical nukes." They are designed to take out a command center, or a large gathering of armored vehicles, or any other juicy battlefield configuration.

Then, there is a slightly bigger nuke that can go farther than the battlefield, but not too far. These can be fired from one European country to about Moscow. These are called, "intermediate range nuclear missiles." They are designed to take out a city, or at least part of one. They target things like large naval bases, or heavy industrial areas that make war machines.

Then, there are very big nuclear weapons called, "Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles." This is what we have in silos in Kansas and elsewhere as our "Central Strategic Forces." These are designed to obliterate anything we don't like about our enemy. We can destroy nuclear weapons in hardened silos with them, we can level cities with them, we can boil naval flotillas with them, we can even trim the tops off mountains with them. We have enough of these to blast the entire land-mass of the world, and then some.

The Russians also retain these abilities. I think some of the larger former Soviet Republics retain some, but probably not enough to just make way for an intergalactic freeway. (I liked the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!) Britain and France have intercontinental capabilities, too, but I think that's mainly being able to put intermediate nuclear weapons on ships, planes, and submarines. India likely has intermediate range nuclear weapons, and Pakistan probably does as well, since China likes them.

Speaking of China, they have long had tactical nuclear capability, but I don't think they built many tactical nukes. They simply wanted a credible nuclear deterrent for a while; meaning they wanted to say, "If you toast us, we can toast you." They had intermediate range missiles only for a bit. They quickly developed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, but they had trouble with the "ballistic" part of that. They could chuck one our way, but there was a 1500 mile (or some huge number) potential strike area. It was a deterrent, but not a strategic weapon, since they couldn't aim at anything. Now, China has benefited from Clinton's, uhm, technical assistance. They have good guidance systems for their missiles, and can aim their new strategic weapons.

Okay, we've done the basic strategic overview. How do you create a nuclear target? Well, first you want something that fits within a circular blast area. You could not make a target of elementary schools. They are all over the nation. You would not make a target of the habitat of Spotted Owls. They are strategically unimportant. So, you would choose something important, within a circular area.

Most of the nuclear targets that we own are essentially the same as they were in the Cold War. Losing Detroit would hurt industrially. Losing Philadelphia would be a blow to the Navy. Losing Washington would disrupt our government, and so forth. Our Central Strategic Forces would be targets still for Russians, but no one else would try to take on everything we have in the cornfields, mountains, and deserts.

How could we make new targets? Two ways: make additional important things, or gather things together in circles that could be blasted. We are looking at decisions which would involve both methods of creating nuclear targets. We are closing military bases, and consolidating our forces into a few remaining bases. This is gathering things in a circle. We are also looking at developing "Sea Bases." These would be made of four or five mammoth new Navy ships which could serve as multi-force land bases, but on water, and mobile around the oceans. These would be new important things. Note that they would also fit in circles.

We are too preoccupied with the newest threats, terrorism and rogue states, to remember the strategic lessons of the Cold War. There are two components to any threat: capability and intent. Intent can change more rapidly than capability. Britain poses a somewhat greater threat to us than does Syria. Britain has capability. Fortunately, they do not have a threatening intent. Syria might give us the evil eye, as far as intent goes, but they are not capable of tackling us.

Russia, hopefully our new friend, has capability. The threat from intent has decreased since the end of the Cold War, but could still change more rapidly than their capability. China now has the capability. What have they shown us of trustworthy intent?

Well, they waited until their, uhm, diplomatic counter-part was no longer in office before unleashing their little bulldog, North Korea. Maybe they didn't intend that. They certainly aren't willing to shoot their own dog for becoming rabid, though. We should remember the People's Republic of China as we go about creating new targets, at which they can now actually aim.