The Trump administration released its Nuclear Posture Review, which basically is a plan to reinvigorate the nuclear arms race with Russia and other nuclear powers.

In my opinion this has been a neocon plan since Russia invaded Ukraine and Trump has lapped it up.

Now it's rearing it's ugly head. Part of their plan is the development of low-yield warheads via the NY Times:

It also calls for the development of a low-yield warhead for some of the nation’s submarine ballistic missiles — part of a broader effort to expand the credible options “for responding to nuclear or non-nuclear strategic attack.” But critics of the low-yield weapons say they blur the line between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, making their use more likely.

During today's White House press briefing, Fox News' John Roberts asked Gen. Mattis about the Nuclear Posture Review.

Roberts said, "It calls for smaller yield nuclear weapons to be added to our arsenal. You're on record saying there's no such thing as a tactical nuke, any time a nuclear weapon is used, it's a strategic game changer."

He continued, "So how does this new posture review add to global stability? Because there are many people who believe that if you have a smaller yield nuclear weapon, you might be more inclined to use it."

Good question, John.

Gen. Mattis replied, "Remember that what we're talking about here is the nuclear deterrent and in that nuclear deterrent, we believe that some nations could miscalculate, one in particular, and that nation could assume that if they used in a conventional fight a small yield bomb, we would not respond with a very large yield bomb."

Who believes that? Trump already dropped the mother of all bombs in Afghanistan* in 2017, to the delight of our mainstream media.

Mattis continued, "Our response to this is to make a small-yield bomb and say don't miscalculate. It's a deterrent. Remember, deterrence is dynamic. It changes from year to year, from decade to decade. We have to address deterrence in its current construct. So we do this, the idea is to raise the threshold. Don't even think about lowering the threshold to a conventional fight and escalating it to one small-yield nuclear weapon strategically changing the game and then think our choice is either surrender or suicide, as Dr. Kissinger put it."

If the U.S was hit with a low-yield nuke as Mattis contends, Cadet Bone Spurs would respond by going big, not small, just like he did when he used the Biggest Bomb In The Conventional Arsenal to flatten a piece of Syria.

The U.S. already has the capability to "instantly massacre 2.88 billion people and leave most of the rest slowly dying in a nuclear wasteland."

Isn't that a deterrent?

Adding newer and sleeker kinds of nuclear weapons only increases the likelihood that one or more may be used.

It does not promote global stability.

*edited to identify Afghanistan as correct location for bombing.