Skip to comments.
NNSA Dismantles Last Nuclear Artillery Shell; Battefield Weapons Were Retired by George H.W. Bush
releases.usnewswire.com ^
Posted on 12/12/2003 9:44:15 AM PST by chance33_98
NNSA Dismantles Last Nuclear Artillery Shell; Battefield Weapons Were Retired by President George H.W. Bush
12/12/03 11:40:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: National Desk
Contact: Bryan Wilkes of U.S. Department of Energy, 202-586-7371
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has dismantled the last nuclear artillery shell in the U.S. nuclear stockpile, eliminating the vestiges of a type of battlefield nuclear weapons that comprised a key element of America's Cold War arsenal.
Employees at NNSA's Pantex facility in Amarillo, Texas, dismantled the last W-79 warhead earlier this year. Pantex officials will hold a ceremony at the plant today to mark the achievement.
"This administration is committed to reducing the threat of nuclear weapons worldwide," said U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. "We have completed dismantlement of another class of nuclear weapons -- weapons that were a very important deterrent during the Cold War."
"Eliminating the last nuclear artillery warhead marks the end of an era in U.S. defense policy that included ground-launched battlefield nuclear weapons," said NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks. "This completes a historic step begun by the United States in 1991. I congratulate our employees at Pantex who were involved in this piece of history."
The United States introduced artillery-fired atomic weapons in its defense arsenal in 1957. Six types were deployed over the years. The W-79 was designed to be fired from an 8-inch artillery piece. These weapons strengthened deterrence by improving the capability of NATO battlefield commanders to stop a Warsaw Pact armored thrust into Western Europe.
In 1991, President George H.W. Bush announced his decision to retire artillery-fired atomic weapons in the U.S. stockpile. The President made his decision unilaterally, apart from any arms control agreement with the former Soviet Union. The weapons, including all W-79s, were returned to NNSA for dismantlement at the Pantex plant.
The Pantex Plant plays a critical role in the surveillance of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. Each year approximately 100 weapons from the active stockpile are sent to Pantex where they undergo a comprehensive diagnostic exam. While most of the weapons are reassembled and returned to the military services, the remaining weapons are subject to destructive evaluation, providing us additional insights into the health of the stockpile. Pantex also refurbishes nuclear weapons in the current stockpile as part of the Stockpile Life Extension Program. The dismantlement of the W79 and other weapons took place over the years as scheduling permitted.
------
NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency of the Department of Energy. It enhances U.S. national security through the military application of nuclear energy, maintains the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, promotes international nuclear nonproliferation and safety, reduces global danger from weapons of mass destruction, provides the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion, and oversees its national laboratories to maintain U.S. leadership in science and technology.
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: nuclearweapons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
To: chance33_98
2
posted on
12/12/2003 9:46:26 AM PST
by
Frank_Discussion
(May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
To: chance33_98
Bummer. This is not a good thing, I'm afraid.
3
posted on
12/12/2003 9:54:36 AM PST
by
Prof Engineer
(...just a moment, just a moment...I've detected a fault in the AE35 unit.)
To: chance33_98
I agree they need to be destroyed.In this day and age with cruise and tomahawks there really is no need for nuke artillery.
4
posted on
12/12/2003 9:56:40 AM PST
by
eastforker
(Money is the key to justice,just ask any lawyer.)
To: Prof Engineer
Why is this not a good thing?
Does any branch of our armed services even use an 8-inch artillery piece? If it won't fit, why should we keep it?
5
posted on
12/12/2003 10:02:37 AM PST
by
ZOOKER
To: chance33_98; Poohbah; section9
Any takes on this?
We don't have 8-inch artillery, but there are 155mm guns. Any chance of getting the W82 back in production?
6
posted on
12/12/2003 10:02:55 AM PST
by
hchutch
("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
To: Prof Engineer
They are kind of an obsolete weapon, are they not? I will be concerned when we start dismantling nuclear cruise missles. Remember that we were outrageously out numbered back then. Now we have bases in Uzbekistan and are about to open one in Georgia. Let us how that the RUssians upheld their part of the bargin. I would not, however want small tactica, nukes emmeded with our troops in the field.
Bush seems to have lifted the ban on small nuke research. This might be the was to go - let fall out (of the non-political type, at least.)
To: ZOOKER
I'm not up on particular artillery pieces. Just the idea of destroying weapons is not necessarily a good idea. If it doesn't fit, by all means, no need to maintain it.
8
posted on
12/12/2003 10:08:11 AM PST
by
Prof Engineer
(...just a moment, just a moment...I've detected a fault in the AE35 unit.)
To: Prof Engineer
If you are judged by the Quantity of Nukes you have, it's better to have a 2003 Nuke vs. a 1957 Nuke.
9
posted on
12/12/2003 10:10:00 AM PST
by
UNGN
(I've been here since '98 but had nothing to say until now)
To: chance33_98
So, like, when do they show up at the local Army/Navy surplus store? "Makes a great gift!"
To: hchutch
IIRC, the W82 program got killed because they couldn't get it to work properly.
Nuclear artillery was always of dubious use; by the time the nuclear release protocols would be completed, the situation would have changed so drastically one way or another (either making a nuclear strike unnecessary, or the situation becoming so unsalvageable that a nuke would be worthless).
11
posted on
12/12/2003 10:13:04 AM PST
by
Poohbah
("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
To: chance33_98
Video and photos of blast.
http://www.vce.com/grable.html
To: chance33_98
Although I am a retired ex-nuke spook from the USAF, I was at a base that was shared by us and the 55GOLFs of the USA. They had the W79 and believe me when it came time to do some "maintenance" on those type, well let's say good riddance. Not a very friendly nuke.
13
posted on
12/12/2003 10:14:55 AM PST
by
wattsup
To: chance33_98
"This administration is committed to reducing the threat of nuclear weapons worldwide," said U.S. Department of Energy Secretary"
Someone please explain to me how this will persuade China, North Korea, and Pakistan to destroy their battlefield nukes as well? I must be dense, because it seems like this would only make the U.S. a more tempting target.
To: chance33_98
This is good news. There is no possible scenario where these weapons would be used, and it's an expensive pain in the backside to guard them 24/7.
Back when I joined the field artillery in 1981 we regularily trained to fire one of these rounds at advancing communist hordes in central Europe. It would have made quite a bang.
To: chance33_98
Nuclear surety inspections for artillery units were major events. Training for them consumed many hours, and gave people something to do when cooped up on a kaserne in Germany with nothing else to do but to do gun drills in the motor pool. And if the unit failed, the LTC commanding could kiss his career good-bye.
As for learning how to pay attention to the smallest detail, artillery nuke weapons training was certainly an excellent way.
Fondly remember huddling around the nuke rounds during the cold snowy winters hoping to get the little bit of warmth that came from them. (Right, the rounds never left their bunkers.)
16
posted on
12/12/2003 10:19:46 AM PST
by
GreyFriar
(3rd Armored Division -- Spearhead)
To: Prof Engineer
I'm not an artillery expert, either, but I recall seeing a History channel story on nuclear artillery.
The gun was huge, took two large wheeled trucks to transport it and all day to set it up. It had to be that large so it could throw the shell far enough that the gun's crew wouldn't be in the blast radius.
There was another, smaller nuke, called the Davy Crockett, but the crew had to dig a bunker and wear rad gear if they expected to survive the blast.
Both weapons were considered impractical and dangerous to our own forces as well as the enemy.
Battlefield nukes may still have their place, but I think missiles are a better delivery system.
17
posted on
12/12/2003 10:23:40 AM PST
by
ZOOKER
To: wattsup
You want scary? The declassifed KGB files claim that Cuban commanders on the ground during the Missile Crisis had battlefield nuke shells, and permission to use them if America had invaded to shut down the Russian missile sites. You think we would have "gone nuclear" if one of those babies was fired?
Everybody, go rent "Matinee", the film with John Goodman as a 1960's monste-movie producer who primeers his latest and greatest in Key West during the Crisis. A wonderful snapshot of the era, layered with the fears of the age. Wonderful!
18
posted on
12/12/2003 10:25:30 AM PST
by
50sDad
("You used ALL THE GLUE on PURPOSE! It's a MAJOR AWARD!")
To: chance33_98
SHORTSIGHTED.
19
posted on
12/12/2003 10:26:18 AM PST
by
semaj
("....by their fruit you will know them.")
To: 68skylark; 1stFreedom; Darksheare; Redleg Duke; SAMWolf; archy; I got the rope; 300winmag; ...
FAPL ping
20
posted on
12/12/2003 10:28:48 AM PST
by
Cannoneer No. 4
(Old soldiers never die. They just go to the commissary parking lot and regroup.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson