(5) Aiming accuracy.—How superior is a weapon which need strike only within a number of miles in order to destroy its target over one which must strike within 1 or 2 miles?
(6) Psychology.—As compared with the A-bomb, to what extent might the H-bomb impair an enemy’s will to resist and accelerate recognition of defeat?
(7) Tactical employment.—What is the relative value of A-bombs and H-bombs in tactical situations—when used against troops in the field, guerrilla fighters, forces preparing for amphibious invasion, a fleet, a string of air strips or submarine bases, atomic facilities, underground installations, etc.?
(8) Definition of “military effectiveness.”—Would the use of H-bombs to destroy large urban centers containing no armaments plants have no “military effectiveness,” or would such destruction aid the attacker and therefore represent “militarily effective” use of the weapon? Is it possible to distinguish, in an era of total war, between “military” and “nonmilitary” targets?
AUTHOR’S COMMENT
The answer to (1) becomes obvious in light of the answers to (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6), all of which must be considered together. We know that a standard H-bomb would be the equal to ten nominal A-bombs in its power to destroy by blast and to as many as thirty A-bombs in its incendiary effects. In terms of total area, the H-bomb can destroy by blast an area of more than 300 square miles, as compared with an area of only ten square miles for the nominal A-bomb, and more than 1,200 square miles by fire and burns, as compared with only four square miles for the early A-bomb model. As for neutron economy, we have seen that this vast increase in power could be achieved at a cost in fissionable A-bomb material possibly as low as one twelfth, and no higher, at the most, than the plutonium required (according to Professor Oliphant’s estimate) for just one A-bomb. It thus becomes obvious that such a weapon not only is much cheaper, in terms of destruction and cost of materials, than the conventional A-bomb, but is much more easily and safely delivered, since it would still be highly effective as a blasting weapon if exploded more than five miles from its target, while as an incendiary it would still be highly effective as far as fifteen miles away. Hence there can be no question that H-bombs vastly excel A-bombs in permitting a highly destructive attack to be compressed in time, and that its psychological effect in impairing an enemy’s will to resist is also incalculably greater.
Its vastly greater range of destructiveness, its economy of material, and its surer delivery also make the H-bomb vastly superior to the A-bomb as a tactical weapon. Neither the H-bomb nor the A-bomb appears to be practical for use against guerrilla fighters, except possibly as a threat.
As already discussed at length in Chapter III, there could be no possible justification, on moral as well as military grounds, for using the H-bomb as a strategic weapon to destroy large urban centers, especially those containing no armaments plants, except in retaliation for such use against us or our allies.
2. If the H-bomb is deemed to be decisive or far more dangerous than the A-bomb, should international control of hydrogen weapons take priority over control of ordinary atomic weapons? Should the United States propose a separate plan exclusively designed to regulate H-bombs?
The official United Nations proposals for international control of atomic energy apparently involve the assumption that A-bombs are so unique technically and so menacing as to set them apart from conventional weapons and to justify separate consideration in the United Nations and a separate regulatory system. If the step from A-bombs to H-bombs is considered to be as great as the step from conventional weapons to A-bombs, does it follow that hydrogen warfare should become the subject of a separate control proposal and should receive separate consideration in the United Nations?