Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US plans for mini-nuke arsenal revealed
NewScientist.com news service ^ | 13:37 19 February 03 | Will Knight

Posted on 03/29/2004 4:49:26 PM PST by vannrox

A leaked Pentagon document has confirmed that the US is considering the introduction of a new breed of smaller nuclear weapons designed for use in conventional warfare. Such a move would mean abandoning global arms treaties.

The document, obtained by the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear weapons watchdog based in the US, describes plans for a gathering of senior military officials and nuclear scientists at the US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska, during the week of 4 August.

The meeting would discuss further development, testing and introduction of a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons. These weapons, with a destructive power of less than five kilotons, could be designed to penetrate an underground bunker before detonating. The Hiroshima bomb dropped by the US in 1945 had a yield of about 15 kilotons.

The US military believes mini-nukes may provide a stronger deterrent to rogue states. This is because the US would be more willing to use them than standard nuclear weapons, which have yields of hundreds of kilotons.

US government officials have confirmed the authenticity of the document, but say that it covers "very long range planning" and "what-if scenarios".

Enhanced radiation

Also on the agenda for the August meeting would be enhanced radiation weapons, also known as neutron weapons. These produce a large amount of radiation without a devastating blast and can be used to decimate weapons stockpiles and troops without destroying much infrastructure.

Patrick Garrett, an analyst with the military think-tank GlobalSecurity.org, says the document is alarming. "It's like looking at the cold war all over again," he told New Scientist.

"The fact that they're actually going to sit down and to talk about reliability issues and what would need to happen for production, testing and guidance, means these people are particularly serious about deploying these things sometime very soon," he says.

Garrett adds that the long-term implications of contaminating a target with radiation may not be well understood. "I don't think these people understand that any use of a nuclear weapon is a bad use," he says.

Treaty threat



The Los Alamos Study Group also condemns the plans for threatening international non-proliferation agreements. Greg Mello, head of LASG, says: "It is impossible to overstate the challenge these plans pose to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the existing nuclear test moratorium, and US compliance with Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which is binding law in the US."

Recent US interest in the development of smaller, more targeted nuclear weapons is well documented. New Scientist reported in October 2000 that the US Defense Appropriations Bill ordered a study of the feasibility of low-yield nuclear weapons. This overturned a ban on research into the development of battlefield nuclear weapons imposed in 1993.

In November 2002, New Scientist also reported a further $15m in US government funding for research into a nuclear "bunker buster", called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

Will Knight


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: armsbuildup; bush; defense; mini; mininuke; nuke; sdi; technology; terror; use; weapon
"...This overturned a ban on research into the development of battlefield nuclear weapons imposed in 1993..."

Mr. Bill Clinton
1 posted on 03/29/2004 4:49:26 PM PST by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: vannrox
The policy of nonproliferation (for others, that is) has served us well for over 50 years. However, it's growing kind of threadbare now, with lots of countries having nukes, and the very real potential for non-state-actors to get them by bribery or clandestine manufacture. Maybe it's time to recognize that nukes have already proliferated, and to prepare ourselves with weapons we'd really be willing to use, instead of building weapons that frighten us as much as they do our opponents.
2 posted on 03/29/2004 5:18:53 PM PST by JoeFromSidney (My book's due out soon. Read excerpts at http://www.thejusticecooperative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
"A leaked Pentagon document..."

Interesting that the focus of the article is on the nukes, not the leaks. Leakers should hang...

3 posted on 03/29/2004 5:21:23 PM PST by etcetera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney
Well don't you think that we need the whole spectrum of nuclear weapons. It is of course untrue that we did not have smaller nukes during the Cold War - we had nuclear artillery, mines, depth charges and even this weird sort of "rocket propelled mortar" Most of those are gone.

If we ever do have to face the Chinese on their territory we shall find a range of nuclear options quite useful.

Let us hope that the public is concerned enough about defense matters that they ignore the peaceniks. I hope the Chinese are listening.

4 posted on 03/29/2004 5:27:20 PM PST by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
As we sit here waiting to see if Iran or NK develop a nuclear weapon for the Islamists to smuggle into one of our cities, this is not a good time to discuss this, particularly if it is long range in nature. Whoever leaked this would probably like to see us nuked. All Kim, Osama or the Mullahs need is a sense of urgency.
5 posted on 03/29/2004 5:42:28 PM PST by JimSEA ( "More Bush, Less Taxes.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson