Nuclear Study, Given Go-Ahead, Rouses Fears About a New 'Bunker Buster' Weapon

The New York Times ^ | 11/17/2002 | JAMES DAO

[JoeFromSidney]

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."

Why should we want weapons that both we and the potential adversary know are unusable?

[jwfiv]

Usable is better, I agree.

Let's make that nuclear bunker buster, and use it

[A Navy Vet]

"Nuclear Study, Given Go-Ahead, Rouses Fears About a New 'Bunker Buster' Weapon"

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.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

Why should we want weapons that both we and the potential adversary know are unusable?

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.

[TheLion]

We could test it in Iraq! The New York Times along with the other liberal rags make me ill. They might as well be the chief propaganda arm of our enemies.

[BenLurkin]

Exactly. Only America's enemies would fear improved American military capability.
What does that say about the Washington Post?

[null and void]

AMEN, bro...

[BenLurkin]

Oops, New York Times.
All the news America's enemies find fit to print.

[error99]

Tactically speaking, and taking a cue from Sun Tzu...

Why worry so much about penetrating an underground complex when it is so much easier to just permanently (as in eternally) seal off the entrance?

[anniegetyourgun]

Washpost....the enemy within....along with the NYT.

[AdA$tra]

It was my understanding that these were not big "boom" bombs. They are to be used on underground biological sites to irradiate and kill the biologic agents without spreading them inadvertantly while trying to blow them up.

[Steely Tom]

"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."

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)

[Republic of Texas]

I'm with you. The only "fear" that we need to worry about, is striking fear into our enemies.

[Pontiac]

"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."

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.

[WOSG]

A contrary view: It is a lot harder to create the technology than copy it. If we dont create it and it is hard and expensive to invent, then it is unlikely anyone else can or will.

I think this fall into that class of weapons that are so unlikely to be useful/used we are better off without it.

[SSN558]

to spend $15 million to study modifying nuclear weapons so they can be used to destroy underground factories or laboratories

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.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I had the same reaction. Among whom were the fears "roused" at the prospect of new and improved bunker buster?

Saddam? Good!

OK, to be fair, if we do actually use nuclear weapons in Iraq or elsewhere, even small tactical ones, it does raise the stakes for us internationally.

But still, it is just so much the reflexive reaction of the liberal establishment, as epitomized by the Times, to fear and oppose anything that might make America stronger.

[Jim Noble]

>>an obscure item that has raised concerns that the administration is gradually moving toward creating new kinds of nuclear weapons<<

Concerns?

CONCERNS???

I'm not concerned-I'm f***ing delighted.

Especially if the new ones can get the bunker on W. 42nd Street.

[PhilDragoo]

The New York Times works best lining the trash.

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.