Home » Air » Nuclear Bomb Upgrade Could Violate Key Treaty

Nuclear Bomb Upgrade Could Violate Key Treaty

by Mike Hoffman on February 28, 2014

B61-12The Air Force released pictures this week of the new guided tail kit installed on the B61-12 nuclear bomb that improves the bomb’s accuracy. Along with upgrades that allow the U.S. military to lower the warhead’s yield, one analyst said the U.S. is breaking a key nuclear treaty.

Carried by U.S. and NATO nuclear-capable bombers and fighter jets, the B61-12 is an upgraded version of the B61, which was designed in 1963. The thermonuclear bomb is guided by an Internal Guidance System and can glide to its target. The B61-12 version has four selectable yields — 0.3, 5, 10 and 50 kilotons — according to the Federation of American Scientists.

The U.S. has started an expensive program to upgrade the B61 that Air Force leaders have been spent years requesting from Congress. The upgrades will cost about $10 billion for 400–500 bombs.

Along with stockpiles in the U.S., the Air Force has B61s deployed across Europe in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. The B61-12s will replace the 200 older versions currently in those countries.

At least one nuclear weapons analyst is questioning whether the upgrades to the B61 may be in violation of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review that states the life extension programs for nuclear munitions can “not support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities.”

Hans Kristensen, a fellow with the Federation of American Scientists, said the new tail kit and lower yield capabilities would allow the U.S. military to employ the bomb in new mission sets. In January, Kristensen asked former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz at a Washington D.C. defense conference if the B61-12 upgrade would allow the Air Force to use it against new target sets and offer new capabilities.

“It would have both effects,” Schwartz told Kristensen at the January conference.

Kristensen writes that these upgrade programs could put the Nuclear Posture Review at risk.

“In addition to violating the NPR pledge, enhancing the nuclear capability contradicts U.S. and NATO goals of reducing the role of nuclear weapons and could undermine efforts to persuade Russia to reduce its non-strategic nuclear weapons posture,” Kristensen wrote for FAS.

Schwartz was asked by Kristensen at the conference whether he thought the upgrades to the B61 would increase the likelihood the U.S. would use the nuclear bomb. Kristensen said Schwartz told him the opposite was true. In fact, the upgrades would improve the bombs deterrence capabilities.

Share |

{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }

Musson February 28, 2014 at 3:55 pm

This is not in support of a new mililtary mission. This is the same mission only with a lower yeild weapon.


Ben February 28, 2014 at 5:03 pm

The implication is that smaller yields can lead to use in smaller, more tactical engagements than are feasible with larger yields.


Stan February 28, 2014 at 10:32 pm

Exactly, they are turning it into a tactical nuke where precision would matter much more. Who the heck knows, maybe they'll stuff something like this into a ground penetrating jacket…


Nadnerbus March 1, 2014 at 12:49 am

That was the first thing I thought. Lower the yield, give it the ability to penetrate a few dozen feet of concrete, and it suddenly has some very real and plausible uses.


Jacob March 1, 2014 at 11:14 am

Well, the only real and plausible use I can think of is if there's an imminent threat of North Korea about to nuke the South, and we happen to know their nukes are stashed in some underground bunker which can only be destroyed with a tactical nuke. Other than that, I don't see how any situation rises to the level of urgency that would warrant us using a nuclear weapon.

FormerDirtDart February 28, 2014 at 4:31 pm

I'm confused. I was under the impression the Nuclear Posture Review was a classified internal US policy, and not a treaty.
And wasn't the B61-12 a development program to get the weapons to fit inside the F-35 bays, that was begun before the 2010 NPR?


Steve B. March 2, 2014 at 12:05 pm



hibeam February 28, 2014 at 4:33 pm

Hagel wants a zero kiloton option. "The EPA is concerned these weapons might harm stuff or startle critters" he explained.


Rodney March 6, 2014 at 2:12 am

LOL! Hagel: the Anti-Defense Secretary


Lance February 28, 2014 at 5:24 pm

Throw the treaty away we need Nukes and say heck with these liberal anti defense brain dead 60s peace hippy crap treaties Obama loves.


bobbymike February 28, 2014 at 7:27 pm

Right on! Abrogate New Start and SORT go back to START I levels of nukes and build a new multi-megaton warhead, new ICBM, SLBM, SSBN and bomber.


Ben February 28, 2014 at 9:28 pm

I can't understand why ANYONE would advocate a larger or more deployable nuclear arsenal. You guys do realize we already have more than enough nukes to decimate any and every enemy we could ever face, right?

That's all ignoring the fact that as soon as one nuke starts flying, they all start flying and we're all f*****.


Nadnerbus March 1, 2014 at 12:53 am

well said.

As the world's super power (for the time being anyway), the US nuclear arsenal should be entirely defensive, and only be designed to deter their use by other nations and regimes. Churning out more and larger warheads is not in line with that goal.

I'd never advocate unilateral disarmament or anything, but the fewer we can have and still protect the nation, the better as far as I am concerned.


oblatt2 March 1, 2014 at 2:05 am

>I can't understand why ANYONE would advocate a larger or more deployable nuclear arsenal.

Its been studied and its known that it comes from a feeling of personal powerlessness.


Jacob March 2, 2014 at 12:54 am

Faith didn't unleash nuclear energy, the science mindset did. People of faith are people content with ignorance.


@PanikaFalcon February 28, 2014 at 5:50 pm

Well, if they had baals they would fund. New Stealthy long range ALCM, even for B2. And pure fusion warheads


Ben February 28, 2014 at 6:00 pm

… Why?


bobbymike February 28, 2014 at 7:29 pm

Cause Peace Through Strength baby!


James Longmire March 2, 2014 at 11:01 am

You're doctor may be able to helpalleviate those feelings of inadequacy you're experiencing with a prescription for Pure Fusion nuclear strength Viagra.


Uranium238 March 3, 2014 at 1:07 pm

Leave it to someone as unprofessional as this person to post attacks on a personal level.

Some of you liberals do not read history well. Wars have been won due to SUPERIOR FIREPOWER, not rainbow colored unicorn excrement.

We need superior firepower as deterrence.

"Speak loudly and carry a big stick."

blight_ March 2, 2014 at 1:24 pm

More Baal idols? That's pagan talk.


RRGED February 28, 2014 at 7:23 pm

When you decrease the man power of the military you increase the technology of the military fire power, I hope it's a smart choice should conflict errupt.


zoneofsubduction March 1, 2014 at 2:38 am

Germany tried and failed with that strategy in the 1940s.

We don't need the best and we can't afford the best any more. We need good enough and enough numbers to deter.


William_C1 March 2, 2014 at 10:34 pm

Why can't we afford the best anymore? We used to be able to. The economy hasn't gotten any smaller.


Deliverator February 28, 2014 at 8:13 pm

Nuclear weapons are not a military decision. Deployment is political. Use is political. Programs like this are jobs focused and political. This is a terrible investment. Can you imagine the fall out from using such a device? Pun intended. The USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons. Using a small one is just as politically unsound as using a MIRV'd megaton ICMB. Please, let's use the funds on something that actually improves the USA. These are dead assets, dead investments for a dead strategy. Deterrent? The MOAB accomplishes nearly the same mission without the fall out.


Tehbeefer February 28, 2014 at 11:38 pm

"Deployment is political. Use is political." I agree.

"Deterrent? The MOAB accomplishes nearly the same mission without the fall out." Blast yield of a MOAB: 11 tons TNT. Blast yield of the B61: 300–340,000 tons TNT, according to WIkipedia. I suspect the 291-ton difference might disagree with you.


William_C1 February 28, 2014 at 11:42 pm

Not even the MOAB compares to the power of a nuclear weapon. Determinant is necessary.


tiger March 7, 2014 at 8:44 pm

We are not talking nuking humans so much as infrastructure targets. There are many valid nuke uses.


Jamie Allen Tucker May 18, 2014 at 1:17 pm

Totally agreed. However, nukes should still be kept at ready for deterrent effect.


hibeam February 28, 2014 at 10:50 pm

I wonder how they modulate the yield? I'm guessing they tweak the timing of the shaped charges to get a less than ideal implosion. With really poor timing you get a North Korean style pfffttt.


Nadnerbus March 1, 2014 at 1:00 am

According to Wiki, it is done by varying the primary yield by boosting with fusion, varying the primary yield by changing the timing on the neutron initiators (right next to the flux capacitors), and by enabling/disabling the second stage fusions device.

From what I read, the implosion has to be perfect every time or there will be no critical mass and no chain reaction. At least with the small amount of fissionable material in modern warheads.


William_C1 March 1, 2014 at 1:39 am

The proper North Korean technique to adjust the yield is to just bash the thing with a hammer enough times.


William_C1 February 28, 2014 at 11:40 pm

How is it that the Russians can develop new ICBMs but we can't incorporate a simple GPS/INS upgrade into an existing bomb? Some past variants of the B61 had selectable yields too.

Considering we haven't designed or built any new nuclear weapons in a long time now, this is probably more a necessity to keep them operational than anything else.


retired462 March 1, 2014 at 8:37 am

Soon Russia will have more weapons than us, and if you think they are honoring their commitment on nuke limits; you could probably qualify for "czar" that Hagel wants to appoint.


Steve B. March 2, 2014 at 12:10 pm

They've had more nuclear warheads then us for a while. Matters not.

Considering they're quality control issues with delivery systems, vs. the near 100% reliability of the Trident and Minuteman systems, as well as the general reliability and technological superiority we have, does a few more matter ?.

It's all about being able to hit the targets desired when you need to and we are much better at that.


blight_ March 2, 2014 at 1:23 pm

I don't think anybody is questioning the quality of their Topols. Their Bulavas, maybe. The Sinevas they already have are good to go. Sturgeons are out along with the Typhoons.

To contrast, our misfortunes are with ground missile systems (Midgetman, Peacekeeper), and the fact that Minuteman III is getting long in the tooth while we focus on Trident D3, which is still working as intended.


xXTomcatXx March 4, 2014 at 10:52 am

The balance of the nuclear trident is shifting to be 70% Navy. With that in mind, I think it's wise that the focus be heavy on making sure the Trident Missile remains the best deterrent option (that hopefully never gets used). Meanwhile, leave the Air Force and Army with the much smaller "tactical" (for lack of a better term) options.

Rob March 1, 2014 at 11:26 am

These should have been scrapped a decade ago. They are part of a disgusting con game. Details: http://www.g2mil.com/sharenuke.htm


Bob March 1, 2014 at 12:07 pm

If we refuse to learn from history and cold hard reality about the foolishness of "trusting" our enemies to reduce weapons arsenals, and we continue to live in our little dream worlds that nations like North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China have no intentions of defeating us militarily some time in the near future, then we all deserve to suffer the consequences. History has shown that a militarily strong nation is very seldom provoked by others and generally respected. Great Commander-in-Chiefs like Democrat John Kennedy and Republican Ronald Reagan kept our world a lot safer through military might. I say "to hell" with pacifying our enemies and tear up the treaties them give them all the leverage and us very little. Let's modernize and increase our military capabilities.


Lightingguy March 1, 2014 at 9:23 pm

If you bankrupt the economy doing it, the protection they provide becomes redundant.


Mitch S. March 1, 2014 at 1:31 pm

Hey I want that workshop/hangout.
Cool round workbench, awesome thick door, all kinds of neat tools and a nuke!


nick March 2, 2014 at 4:53 am

standard vibration setup for ESS (envitomental stress screening).
and a Nuke (-:


Nick Furry March 1, 2014 at 5:06 pm

my uncle has better and cooler "tools" in his garage! I don't think that a REAL nuke rebuilding shop!!


Maj Kong March 1, 2014 at 9:41 pm

Putin can invade Ukraine and say FU to Uncle Sam. Well guess what? Here's an upgrade to the B61, suck it Vladimir!


Steve B. March 2, 2014 at 12:13 pm

Recall that Russia invaded Georgia (the European Georgia – it's on the eastern side of the Black Sea, not south of Tennessee) back in '08 and Bush could only watch and bitch. No different now.


blight_ March 2, 2014 at 1:21 pm

At best, the US could send back Georgian light infantry battalions from Iraq to get mauled by an actual nation-state army.

Good foreshadowing of Rumsfeld doctrine motorized infantry against a modern army, instead of lightly armed savages.


rtsy March 2, 2014 at 5:52 pm

Russia did not initiate that invasion. Georgia invaded Russia so Russia showed them what a stupid idea that was by occupying every square inch of Georgian territory for a few months.


Edward Cafarella March 3, 2014 at 9:07 am

AS was correct back then…we shouldn't be doing anything. Obama drawing another line in the sand is a moronic move. He has absolutely no foreign policy plan at all, everything is ad hoc.


frank March 1, 2014 at 11:18 pm

And we all know that Obama will do anything that Putin tells him too.


Steve B. March 2, 2014 at 12:15 pm

You're right. Maybe this is a good time to go grab pesky Canada.


Dave March 2, 2014 at 2:55 am

It said "The upgrades will cost about $10 billion for 400–500 bombs" How do they justify $20 million per bomb, when this is just a nuclear JDAM????


Raraavis March 3, 2014 at 4:35 pm

Defense contractors gotta eat.

Except for a few years in the late 1940s and a tiny blip and the end of the Cold War, the United States has had a War Economy since 1939. We have spent trillions and trillions on weapon systems for exaggerated enemies. Even with the country 16 trillion in debt and an economy still in the mist of Depression 2.0 nobody bats an eye at 10 billion here and 10 billion there. The US defense industry is the greatest scam in the history of the world.


rtsy March 2, 2014 at 5:48 pm

This program is designed to justify the future use of a Nuke. Putting it in a platform that's smaller and more precise means some idiot is going to argue that a nuke can be a "surgical strike".

How could anyone support this program?


Edward Cafarella March 3, 2014 at 9:05 am

Do you read what's going on in Iran? If it come to it, would you like us to blow up half the country and kill tens of miilions or use a few of these and take out their nuclear program. Come on dude, think!


rtsy March 3, 2014 at 9:48 am

Do you have any idea how bad it would be for the USA to use even a small nuke while we go around telling Iran and North Korea that they can't even have the hardware to make nukes because we don't trust them?

The US or any other nation ever using a Nuke, even one with a "small yield" modular core, would mean the absolute end of any semblance of a diplomatic community and start WWIII.

This program is dangerous because it make people think it's okay to use these weapons. It isn't.


Zues March 2, 2014 at 6:45 pm

What the shit, 25 mill for a set of fins…. Are they gold


joe March 3, 2014 at 3:14 am

And low-yield capabilities.
I'm no expert, but I'm assuming the fuzing systems on a nuclear warhead probably do contain gold, and are probably more expensive on a per-weight basis – if the fuze on a tactical nuke doesn't qualify as a "absolutely cannot malfunction evar!!1!!" system, I don't know what does…


Edward Cafarella March 3, 2014 at 9:03 am

Good move, these will be the weapon of choice against Iran.


TonyC. March 3, 2014 at 10:45 am

Upgrading existing weapons should not violate any nuclear treaty. Developing new weapons is more problematic. The Russian's have a new medium range nuclear missile, why worry about the B61 upgrades at all? The delivery system for these weapons are aircraft, easily intercepted. The new medium range ballistic missile is a different story. There has to be verifiable treaties, not promises.


blight_ March 3, 2014 at 12:31 pm

So long as INF treaty compliance is met and there is no funny business about fudging the number of bombs both sides keep in inventory we'll be fine.

I honestly doubt the Russians are telling us the full truth of their nuclear weapons inventory (indeed, we only ever got half truths about Biopreparat and their chemical weapons arms); but maintaining their nuclear security is prohibitively expensive. It's cheaper to draw down their Rocket Forces and invest it in the army so they can keep pushing over small countries like Georgia.

Contrast Georgia to Chechenya in '93. Very different Russian Army after a decade of rot and rebuilding.


Richard Browne March 3, 2014 at 11:28 am

The Nuclear Posture Review is definitely not a treaty. It is an internal US government policy statement subject to change.


ereilad March 3, 2014 at 11:33 am

Surely Russia and China have the very latest of technology employed in their weapons.
Do you really think they are worried about following any treaties at this time?
Russia is in the Crimea because they think they have better weapons than we do.


blight_ March 3, 2014 at 11:50 am

Russia is in the Crimea because they never left Sebastopol. It's the home of the Black Sea Fleet and the Ukranians didn't remove them in the first place (or couldn't).

I'm surprised as to where all the paramilitary goons came from, but they look like light infantry. Bring fire engines and hose them down with water cannons. It's unlikely Putin will order his paramilitary goons to respond with deadly force, but you never know…


Steve B. March 4, 2014 at 7:59 pm

I recall a few days ago, news reports of transport planes as well as helicopters bringing in troops. Thus I assumed, but never saw confirmed, that Russia flew in light airborne forces. As well I think they had some ground forces including naval infantry, in the region, where they had a brigade stationed.


Bob Given March 3, 2014 at 12:14 pm

Given the current situation with the Tsar Putin, "Treaty" worries!!! Really!!! I'd say upgrade your Atomics to the point you can fly'em right into Tsar's freakin' Office……and we all used to worry about the Commies….apparently it's Russia in general is the problem …..maybe Patton was right???!!!!!


blight_ March 3, 2014 at 12:29 pm

Won't be long before we start funding Islamic radicals again to go after the big russian bear to keep them off our backs.

Then they will be Freedom Fighters again…ha ha ha.


Chris March 3, 2014 at 8:04 pm

NPR is not a treaty. The onion has more factual pieces than this..


G. S. March 5, 2014 at 1:10 am

Just looking at that picture brings back a lot of fond memories of an M&I facility. I'm proud of my service on these devices and happy to see them being upgraded for our countries defense.


James B Gibb March 6, 2014 at 10:23 am

What's all this crap about the nukes, this shithead President hasn't got the balls to use nuclear weapons. Like everything he touches, it'll be useless if he has his way. They should store a 50 ton toy under the Whitehouse with a Zero delay fuse, so if this ass pushes the button he meets Allah first. The professionals say he's a nut case and yet he still has he trigger? You can't get a gun if someone thinks your a hazard, what's so special about this fool, when he scares the hell out of us all?


tiger March 7, 2014 at 5:52 pm

Looking at that B-61 just resting there, do any of you get the urge just Hop on wearing a Stetson & doing a Slim Pickens impersonation????
"Hey. Where is Major Kong?"


funny valentines day quotes July 29, 2014 at 8:31 am

I loved as much as you’ll receive carried out right here.
The sketch is attractive, your authored material stylish.

nonetheless, you command get got an nervousness over that you wish be delivering the following.

unwell unquestionably come more formerly again as exactly the same nearly very often inside
case you shield this increase.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: