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

Skip to comments.

US Senate defeats move to stop nuclear bomb study (Dems fail to stop US development of weapons)
Reuters ^ | July 1, 2005 | Richard Cowan

Posted on 07/01/2005 12:08:44 AM PDT by FairOpinion

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats on Friday failed to stop the Energy Department from studying the feasibility of a "bunker buster" nuclear bomb the Bush administration is considering.

By a vote of 53-43, the Senate refused to delete $4 million in funds to study the experimental weapon that would penetrate the earth and explode to demolish buried enemy targets.

The funds were included in a bill that would fund Energy Department activities in the fiscal year starting on Oct. 1. A House of Representatives version of the bill does not contain funds to study the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

"We're talking about a study. What's the harm in getting the study?" asked Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, a Virginia Republican.

Democrats said it would send a dangerous signal to other countries that the United States was headed toward development of a new class of nuclear weapons, thus encouraging them to develop their own arsenal.

"What moral authority do we have to ask others to give up their nukes if we're determined to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons of our own?" asked Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat.

Besides the $4 million for the Energy Department study, the administration has asked Congress for $4.5 million to fund Pentagon research into the bunker buster. The Pentagon funding was not included in House legislation and the Senate has not yet considered it.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat, cited scientists' beliefs that a bunker buster, if ever used, would spread deadly radiation.

"There is no way you can drive a missile casing deep enough to prevent radioactive spewing," Feinstein said.

The Pentagon has estimated that 70 countries are trying to protect key military assets, such as weapons of mass destruction or command and control facilities, from aerial bombing by hiding them in deep underground bunkers.

The fate of the Energy Department's bunker-buster study will be in the hands of House and Senate negotiators on this funding bill.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bunkerbuster; johnwarner; nationalsecurity; nuclear
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
Democrats, true to form, tried to stop us from developing efficient weapons.

I read that you NEED nuclear bunker busters, because the enemy puts their nuclear and bio/chemical weapons development deep underground. I guess the Dems don't want us to be able to stop that, they rather if we sit here naked and wait until the terrorists and terrorist nations finish their development of WMD and attack us with it.

1 posted on 07/01/2005 12:08:46 AM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Senate Democrats [...] failed

Ahhhhhh... how I never, ever get tired of seeing those words used in the same sentence. :)

2 posted on 07/01/2005 12:11:17 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-G-d, PRO-LIFE..." -- FR founder Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat, cited scientists' beliefs that a bunker buster, if ever used, would spread deadly radiation.

"There is no way you can drive a missile casing deep enough to prevent radioactive spewing," Feinstein said.

----

LMAO

Well, if there is one thing DiFi and her cohort from California know about, it's spewing, that's for sure.

3 posted on 07/01/2005 12:12:06 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Democrats consistantly demonstrate they can never be trusted for our national security.


4 posted on 07/01/2005 12:12:39 AM PDT by Cruz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I guess she prefers that the enemy succeeds in developing nukes and let the radiation spread right here in the US,

Once again, she is more worried about our enemies, than her constituents.


5 posted on 07/01/2005 12:14:00 AM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Once again, she is more worried about our enemies, than her constituents.

In a metaphysical sense: our enemies ARE her constituents. :)

6 posted on 07/01/2005 12:16:13 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-G-d, PRO-LIFE..." -- FR founder Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Iran is secretly negotiating with North Korea to build a network of underground bunkers to conceal its clandestine nuclear weapons project.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421148/posts


7 posted on 07/01/2005 12:16:40 AM PDT by endthematrix (Thank you US armed forces, for everything you give and have given!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat, cited scientists' beliefs that a bunker buster, if ever used, would spread deadly radiation.

"There is no way you can drive a missile casing deep enough to prevent radioactive spewing," Feinstein said.

What is it now? About $165,000/yr plus perts and per diem?

Well, I guess it's the price one has to pay for representation from those with a higher IQ so we can live in peace knowing their intellect is omnipresent. /s

8 posted on 07/01/2005 12:18:04 AM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cruz

"By a vote of 53-43"

So who were the two Republicans who didn't vote with the rest of the Republicans?

We have 55 R Senators, so why don't we have at least 55 votes FOR the weapon development?


9 posted on 07/01/2005 12:20:07 AM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Two were probably absent during the vote.


10 posted on 07/01/2005 12:23:31 AM PDT by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

We have 55 R Senators, so why don't we have at least 55 votes FOR the weapon development?



Absentees.


11 posted on 07/01/2005 12:26:08 AM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Good news.


12 posted on 07/01/2005 12:43:52 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
"What moral authority do we have to ask others to give up their nukes if we're determined to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons of our own?" asked Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat."

It's simple Teddy. Put down your beer mug and read this. We are extremely responsible in the way that we store our nukes and in the very stringent procedures that govern the possible use of these weapons. Terror-sponsoring states like Iran, on the other hand, are wildy irresponsible and have a significant probability of providing nuclear weapons to terrorist groups or even launching a sneak attack on their own. That's why we have the moral authority to develop new weaopns while demanding irresponsible regimes to not develop their own weapons. It's just like here in America where responsible military units are allowed to own heavy artillery weapons while inner-city gangs are prevented by law from owning these weapons.

Don't try to put American on the same moral plane as Iran, North Korea, and Pol Pot. That's the same mistake that stupid Durbin made.

13 posted on 07/01/2005 1:29:57 AM PDT by defenderSD ("I am not a troll" said the troll as a thunderous Zot descended on him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: defenderSD
"What moral authority do we have"

Speak for yourself Ted!

14 posted on 07/01/2005 1:33:21 AM PDT by endthematrix (Thank you US armed forces, for everything you give and have given!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

We'll either develop and stage nuclear bunker busters, or we'll use cratering nukes for the same purpose when the time comes for their necessity. ...one or the other. Nuclear bunker busters would be much less hazardous and easier to clean up.


15 posted on 07/01/2005 2:12:11 AM PDT by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

The Dems can take solace in the fact that one of theirs can hand over the plans for the weapon to our enemies, just like they did in the 50's with nuclear weapons.


16 posted on 07/01/2005 3:58:42 AM PDT by Hardastarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

The dems would have us all vaporized if they had their way.


17 posted on 07/01/2005 4:26:49 AM PDT by OldFriend (AMERICAN WARS SET MEN FREE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Democrats said it would send a dangerous signal to other countries that the United States was headed toward development of a new class of nuclear weapons, thus encouraging them to develop their own arsenal.

Actually, this is NOT a new class of nuclear weapon. In the 1950s, the Navy's old Bureau of Ordnance and the Atomic Energy Commission jointly developed (under Project ELSIE) the Mk 8, 11, and 91 "light case" (or LC--hence ELSIE) ground penetrating atomic bombs, based upon the much heavier "Little Boy" gun-assembly weapon. These were designed for carrier based aircraft, such as the Douglas Skyraider and the A-4 Skyhawk, to strike concrete hardened Soviet submarine pens in case of World War III. The concept was successfully proven by the BUSTER-JANGLE test in 1951 at the Nevada Proving Grounds. Chuck Hansen's U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History (Arlington, TX: Aerofax, 1988) gives a really good overview of the program. With all of this said, I'm wondering why DoD is even feeling the need to go back and study ground penetrator A-bombs since they were developed over fifty years ago and the data should still available at either the Department of Energy's archives or the National Archives' classified vault. Seems like this study would be just reinventing the wheel...
18 posted on 07/01/2005 5:00:09 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner ("Si vis pacem para bellum")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I am willing to bet on the RAT side Kerry wasn't there.


19 posted on 07/01/2005 5:49:41 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
"The concept was successfully proven by the BUSTER-JANGLE test in 1951 at the Nevada Proving Grounds."

My guess is that even nuclear technology has changed since the Korean War era. The nuclear component of the new weapons would be fairly ordinary but the trick is to get this device hundreds of meters into the earth before detonation.

20 posted on 07/01/2005 6:04:04 AM PDT by hford02 (I have to get my tinfoil hat refitted -- I keep picking up NPR and Air America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 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.

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