[danielvf]

Humanity as a whole is probably better off.

A core strategy of US nuclear forces for the past sixty years has been to increase precision and to reduce warhead size.

The biggest US warhead ever was in service in 1954 - a 15,000 kiloton bomb. Our biggest current bomb, designed in the 70's, is 1,200 kilotons, less than a tenth of what we've had before. Our latest ICBM warhead is only 300 - 475 kilotons.

Also with the increased precision, the US has been reducing the number of warheads - we now have one third? the number of warheads we had in the 1960's. In fact, Russia has more declared nuclear weapons than the US.

The increase accuracy is likely to save a lot of lives in the case of war.

[MaxfordAndSons]

You're missing the forest for the trees. The accuracy to kilotonnage ratio of the warheads, as well as the absolute warhead count, is irrelevant. The US nuclear arsenal as a whole is 2-3x more effective, and thus 2-3x deadlier, because of the super-fuze.

Also, even if the increased accuracy results in less civilian casualties during the first strike (debatable, as strategic population centers will still be targeted...with greater accuracy), the super-fuze is still likely increasing the overall probability of nuclear war. Thus I would hardly say it makes humanity as a whole better off.

[danielvf]

In the eighties, the US had missles with a CEP of 300 feet. The increased accuracy from the fuzes is irrelevant in terms of attacking cities. It only matters for attacking nuclear hardened silos.

The US arsenal has been getting less deadly against civilians and the earth, while becoming more effective against other nuclear forces. Seems like a good trade.

[Steve44]

> The increase accuracy is likely to save a lot of lives in the case of war.

In the case a a limited tactical war, that is a good possibility.

For a global war, perhaps in the short term there may well be fewer casualties, but then potentially a lot more 'survivors' to suffer over the next weeks/months/years.

Would you want to try and scrabble for survival following a large scale nuclear attack, or be vaporised at the start. I certainly know my preference.

[throwaway5752]

"The increase accuracy is likely to save a lot of lives in the case of war."

Unlikely. It's likely to kill about as many with better efficiency.

[credit_guy]

Not really. The aim of these improvements, according to the article, is to more efficiently take out hardened military installations. The soldiers serving at those bases will die either way, but using fewer bombs means less collateral damage, and thus fewer civilian loses.