personal attacks aside ... My claim is based on what nuclear defense experts have been warning for many years: US nuclear strategy is entirely based on a pre-emptive surprise strike:
anyone who thinks current (even combined) Chinese / Russian military capability would stand a chance against US power in a kinetic war is deluding themselves. (List of United States military bases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military...)
How on earth do minor effective yield updates from burst timing tweaks indicate that US nuclear strategy is "entirely based on a pre-emptive surprise strike"?
Anything involving nukes could be framed as "undermining strategic stability." Even disarming them.
Also: the doomsday clock group has a credibility problem from their metaphor holding them accountable for prior alarmism.
The target will not see it as a "friendly attack with only a low-yield device" (and the US can't count on a measured response). If my country gets nuked what would justify my _trust_ that the next attack won't be a big one?
> "Hey all you nuclear powers out there. We’re just going to trust that you recognize this is “just a little nuclear weapon” and won’t retaliate with all you’ve got. Remember! The US only intends to nuke you “a little bit.”" -- https://twitter.com/mhanham/status/1089648491616448514
It doesn't matter the yield when the target is also a nuclear power - it was still the first strike and the correct response would be escalating (in case your adversary is many times stronger your only move would be to inflict max damage on your enemy in as little time as possible - you might not have much, or risk losing it all - that means very high chance of nuclear escalation).
edit:
for those interested, some further reading on why this is a problem:
see also parent comment where there are 2 more links under "edit: ..." that support the argument that new fuze capability means higher risk of US using it preemptively. I agree with you that preemptive strikes aren't the only options, but all the research I've seen since the Bush era point to that scenario being _very_ likely (and thanks to fuze capability even more likely than unlikely. why wouldn't they use it especially during a preemptive strike. this way they get to say "look it was only a small nuke!")
from the article:
> Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.
...
> This vast increase in US nuclear targeting capability, which has largely been concealed from the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear strategy and intentions.
...
> Russian planners will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability—a capability that would require Russia to undertake countermeasures that would further increase the already dangerously high readiness of Russian nuclear forces. Tense nuclear postures based on worst-case planning assumptions already pose the possibility of a nuclear response to false warning of attack. The new kill capability created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used in response to early warning of an attack—even when an attack has not occurred.
The increased capability of the US submarine force will likely be seen as even more threatening because Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack.
