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

Skip to comments.

U.S. Congress resists 'bunker buster' (Video Demo)
The Washington Times ^ | 05/10/05 | Nicholas Kralev

Posted on 05/10/2005 9:21:11 AM PDT by smoothsailing

U.S. Congress resists 'bunker buster'

By Nicholas Kralev

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published May 10, 2005

The Bush administration faces strong opposition in Congress to funding for research to bolster the U.S. nuclear arsenal for the second year in a row, but it may receive a limited budget for one program, administration and congressional officials say.

    The proposal that met most resistance from both Democrats and Republicans is the creation of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), the "bunker buster" that would be able to break through rock.    

 "The Pentagon has been interested in improving our capabilities for several years, and there are hardened and deeply buried targets around the world," said Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

    Last year, he said, the administration "looked at two different bombs" and at how to "harden and control the way they strike."  

   But the proposal raised the prospect of beginning production, which was seen as premature in Congress.    

 This year, Mr. Brooks said, the request is focused on one bomb and is limited to research. The administration is asking for $8.5 million in the 2006 budget.

    "This is a feasibility study," Mr. Brooks said. "There will be a separate decision to go to a more complete design study, and then we'll talk about production."    

 Officials said their intention is to look at a penetrator built and deployed by the Clinton administration and to study whether they can "harden" its capabilities.

    Late last month, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld pressed Congress to approve the request, telling a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, "It seems to me studying it makes all the sense in the world."    

 Two weeks ago, a congressionally mandated study by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences said the RNEP could kill more than.....

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bunkerbuster; miltech; mininukes; nationaldefense; nationalsecurity; nuclear; nucleararsenal; proliferation; rnep; usdefense
BUNKER BUSTER DEMO
1 posted on 05/10/2005 9:21:12 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. Damn! Sounds like the name of a porn star!

Kaboooom! I want one!


2 posted on 05/10/2005 9:26:50 AM PDT by RexBeach ("I can see it now. You and the moon. You wear a necktie so I'll know you." -Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

So, who's running the show in Congress???

C'mon, folks! Why not fund weaponry that could save the lives of US soldiers?!!! These are weapons with one use only - to destroy hardened military targets.

I thank God I am not and never will be a politician. It would tear me apart to have to abandon principle for expediency.

The hypocrisy in politico-topia is disgusting.


3 posted on 05/10/2005 9:27:44 AM PDT by msf92497 (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

This would be like Congress trying defund tank research in WWII. What are they thinking?


4 posted on 05/10/2005 9:44:57 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/charterschoolsexplained.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
>>>...a congressionally mandated study by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences said the RNEP could kill more than 1 million people if used in a heavily populated area. <<<

So could 10 Daisy Cutters if dropped in 10 100,000 seat stadiums. What the hell does that statistic have to do with taking out enemy capabilities like missile launch sites and nuclear production facilities underground in Iran and China? Those are designed for one purpose only: to kill 1 million of us in heavily populated areas.

5 posted on 05/10/2005 9:59:45 AM PDT by HardStarboard (With Lebanon simmering, Iran on medium-high, whose next? I vote Syria....lets turn up the heat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

The video is Crossbow, a COMPLETELY different, conventional (i.e. non-nuke) penetrating weapon. Rather slick as it's effective against sheltered targets (like this A-7) or targets in the open (there's another video going around of a Russian multiple rocket launcher getting the treatment).

You are unlikely to see video of RNEP for a number of reasons.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F


6 posted on 05/10/2005 10:03:02 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F (If timidity made you safe, Bambi would be king of the jungle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
You are correct.

As the article clearly states, the requested funding is for research.

7 posted on 05/10/2005 10:12:12 AM PDT by smoothsailing (Qui Nhon Turtle Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Republicans = flacid.


8 posted on 05/10/2005 10:16:25 AM PDT by NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msf92497
Why not fund weaponry that could save the lives of US soldiers?!!! These are weapons with one use only - to destroy hardened military targets.

Destroying enemy commanders and their command and control infrastructure has no bearing on saving the lives of U.S. soldiers?

Where did you go for basic military training? Girl Scout camp?

9 posted on 05/10/2005 10:30:20 AM PDT by TXnMA (ATTN, ACLU & NAACP: There's no constitutionally protected right to NOT be offended -- Shove It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: msf92497

"C'mon, folks! Why not fund weaponry that could save the lives of US soldiers?!!! These are weapons with one use only - to destroy hardened military targets."

It is nuclear. And it will force countries like Iran to build these type of bunkers in populated areas.


10 posted on 05/10/2005 11:10:41 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

That was my point, FRiend. I was angry about the hypocrisy on the Hill. The politicians cry big crocodile tears about every US military personnel KIA, but when it comes time to build a weapon that will help save US lives, they run away from it.

I love the nuke bunker busters. They need to be built and deployed ASAP. So does the "neutron" bomb.

Oh, BTW, destroying an enemies ability to see, hear, speak and move, is an excellent first strike tactic.


11 posted on 05/10/2005 2:05:25 PM PDT by msf92497 (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: msf92497
FRiend, we are definitely on the same wavelength, Sorry I misread your byplay...

I'm definitely in favor of what the military calls "force multipliers" -- tools where a single GI (or aircraft, or bomb) can do a job formerly done by applying overwhelming force or numbers.

Example: bunker buster vs carpet bombing...

If that means our troops can sit back safely at a distance and just enjoy the show, so much the better!

12 posted on 05/11/2005 6:49:04 AM PDT by TXnMA (ATTN, ACLU & NAACP: There's no constitutionally protected right to NOT be offended -- Shove It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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