Posted on 11/16/2002 4:07:10 PM PST by Pokey78
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 — Buried in the $393 billion defense authorization bill that Congress approved this week was an obscure item that has raised concerns that the administration is gradually moving toward creating new kinds of nuclear weapons.
The item authorizes the National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages the nation's nuclear stockpile, to spend $15 million to study modifying nuclear weapons so they can be used to destroy underground factories or laboratories.
The United States produced a "bunker buster" weapon in 1997 by repackaging a hydrogen bomb into a hardened case. But Pentagon planners contend that such a weapon would not be effective against the deeply buried and fortified installations that some countries, including Iraq and North Korea, are thought to use for producing and storing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Advocates of the study contend that the administration is not yet proposing to create a new weapon and is simply looking at solutions to an increasingly significant military problem.
But critics argue that the study is a first step toward producing weapons that would require a resumption of nuclear testing, which the United States suspended in 1992.
The Energy Department is also considering building a new installation for making the plutonium pits that are at the heart of nuclear bombs. The plant would cost $2.2 billion to $4.1 billion, the department estimates. It intends to issue a decision on construction in April 2004.
"A new `bunker busting' nuclear earth penetrator sends exactly the wrong signal to the world," said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts. "At a time when we are trying to discourage other countries — such as North Korea — from developing nuclear weapons, it looks hypocritical for us to be preparing to introduce a whole new generation of nuclear weapons into the arsenal."
Democrats had tried to strip the $15 million item from the bill but instead settled for a compromise that would require the administration to issue a report explaining how the modified bomb would be used and whether conventional weapons could be just as effective. The Democrats also inserted a provision requiring the administration to seek Congressional approval before doing any basic research into a new nuclear weapon.
Fred Celec, the deputy assistant to the secretary of defense for nuclear matters, said the Pentagon would study ways of repackaging a weapon in hardened casing that could withstand crashing into solid rock.
Responding to criticism that the Pentagon was trying to make nuclear weapons more usable, Mr. Celec replied, "The definition of deterrence is that you must have the capability and that your opponent must believe you will use that weapon."
But Michael A. Levi, a physicist with the Federation of American Scientists, an arms control group, said that although a bunker buster might release less fallout than other nuclear weapons, it would still spread enough radiation to kill thousands of people. He argued that improvements in conventional weapons had made them almost as effective for closing off underground facilities.
"These are brute-force bombs," Mr. Levi said of the bunker buster. "The collateral damage they cause makes them less usable, and therefore less of a deterrent."
Why should we want weapons that both we and the potential adversary know are unusable?
Let's make that nuclear bunker buster, and use it
Who exactly has "fears"? Not me...I WANT the biggest meanest destructive weapons on the planet, and I WANT everyone to know we have 'em.
Your reading this wrong and the author has obviously slanted his statements to the left. Again, just like in our arms race with the Soviet Union, you build an amazing weapon that the world knows you won't use in peace, but understands that if times are desperate, ANYTHING can and will happen. It's called deterance. It works!
The only downside is our pathetic leadership. Should another Clinton get into office and sell of our new technology to China, we'll be in worse shape than we are now.
I just don't get this logic. I don't understand the rationale that says, essentially, "if we forgo such-and-such a weapon, our enemies will also forgo it because they will say, gee, the US hasn't developed such-and-such, so we shouldn't either."
What planet do these people live on? Do they think our enemies would hesitate one second to use the most horrible weapons they can possibly get their hands on against us?
They sound like perpetual graduate students.
Nuclear bunker-busters: great. Thermonuclear bunker-busters? Great squared.
(steely)
A weapon carefully chosen for a specific application would have little if any collateral damage.
With modern warhead design it should not be a problem in sizing the warhead to the chosen target.
Also it should be possible to use a neutron bomb in this application. The neutron bomb would have a low explosive yield but having penetrated the hardened structure detonates irradiating the facility with intense neutron radiation killing all personnel and bio-organisms inside.
The highly radioactive bomb residue would also make the facility unusable with out expending huge resources in decontamination of the facility.
This a drop in the bucket, cost wise...and they are not used to irradate the enemy. They were designed with one target in mind, and that is Sodamn Insane. They will penetrate about 20 feet of reinforced concrete or solid rock and the shock wave does the rest. The cost is low because the old line drawings can be converted to CAD and production can begin almost immediately. Picture a W88 mounted in a maraging steel cylinder with a laser guided Mavrick married to the aft end. Peace through strength. The concept predates even Ronald Regean.
Concerns?
CONCERNS???
I'm not concerned-I'm f***ing delighted.
Especially if the new ones can get the bunker on W. 42nd Street.
The article is written in NewYorkTimesSpeak--defending America is never fair, never the "right" thing to do.
Appeasement, unilateral disarmament, treaties--the only allowable behaviors.
It's delightful to know that here in New Mexico--perhaps at Sandia Labs or Los Alamos National Laboratory--such weapons are being designed.
The shrieking fairies of the Times are unable to create or defend anything of value.
As for bunker busting--the Times is bunk and ripe for busting.
A thermobaric enema for the Old Gray Drag Queen--
The "paper of record" is ready for the dustbin of history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.