And you thought the nuclear arms race was over?

[Turner]

Read on:

New nuclear-weapons push invites a dangerous backlash

Last week, the Bush administration's top nuclear experts gathered at Omaha's Offutt Air Force Base to review the nation's nuclear arsenal.


Some of those experts believe the U.S. needs a new weapon with a Dr. Strangelove name the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. That's the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s formal name for the bunker-buster, a nuclear version of the conventional weapon U.S. forces used in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and in Iraq (news - web sites) to burrow into caves and underground bunkers. The nuclear warhead would pack a relatively small punch, just enough to destroy reinforced steel-and-concrete command centers and vaporize stocks of biological and chemical weapons deep beneath the earth's surface.


In spite of the ominous sound of the weapon, the military has strong arguments for developing it. Unlike most of the Cold War-era nuclear arsenal designed to wipe out large chunks of the former Soviet Union, the nuclear bunker-buster could target today's threats, such as buried weapons of mass destruction.


But while the military utility of the bunker-buster is undeniable, the logic behind building it is flawed. It would set the U.S. on an unnecessary course that could trigger a new nuclear arms race.


Unlike the rest of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which was built to deter an attack, the nuclear bunker-buster would be a first-use weapon. Its development would put new nuclear muscle behind the administration's new policy of waging pre-emptive war. Considering the promise of conventional weapons to handle that same bunker-busting mission, building such a nuclear device would send the wrong message to fledgling nuclear powers with itchy trigger fingers.


Among the problems with nuclear-tipped bunker-busters, they could:

• Require a resumption oftesting Building a new warhead would probably require a resumption of underground testing, several nuclear experts outside the government say. The U.S. has not conducted a nuclear test since 1992. And four years later, in 1996, it signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which ended most nuclear testing.
  
  
  The Bush administration already has signaled interest in setting aside the moratorium which was never ratified by Congress so the Pentagon could test its aging arsenal, as well as develop the bunker-buster. But nuclear powers such as China and wannabe nuclear states such as Iran could interpret resumed U.S. testing as a green light to accelerate their own programs.
  
  
• Provoke enemies The current U.S. arsenal of 7,000 operational warheads deters an enemy from striking first, since the retaliation would be overwhelming. The argument for nuclear bunker-busters is that the principle of deterrence is not effective for hostile nations with unstable leaders, such as North Korea (news - web sites), so the U.S. needs a limited, first-strike nuclear weapon.
  
  
  The problem with that logic is that the mere development of a weapon designed for war fighting rather than deterrence could tempt fledgling nuclear powers to use their arsenals to fight regional wars.
  
  
• Contaminate battlefields. Some nuclear experts say a bunker-buster warhead probably could not penetrate deep enough into a bunker to contain the radioactive debris that would come from the blast. The target might be destroyed, but the release of deadly radioactivity could threaten friendly forces and civilians.

The Pentagon says conventional firepower can't match the target-destroying capabilities of a nuclear bunker-buster. From a war-fighting perspective, the Pentagon is right. Conventional warheads will never carry the same destructive force. But the negatives that would result from encouraging new and less-stable nuclear powers to use their weapons offset any advantages.


The Pentagon also says resuming nuclear testing might not be necessary. That's possible, considering that the Defense Department already has an older, less-effective nuclear device for penetrating earth. But a new nuclear weapon that could burrow deeply into a bunker or cave probably would require some testing, setting a precedent for the rest of the world that's unthinkable.


The military has a more realistic and safer solution for destroying an enemy's underground bunkers. Recent breakthroughs make conventional weapons promising candidates for such a mission. For instance, precision targeting now allows the military to make repeated strikes against the same underground hole.


With continued improvements, conventional weapons could prove to be nearly as effective, without the Dr. Strangelove-like consequences.

Thoughts?

 

[Hitro]

Where is Hans Blix when you need him?

 

[G-Man]

I doubt it'll ever go beyond suggestions. Even if they'll make a nuke capable of destroying just the bunker with very little damage to the serroundings the mere fact it's a nuke will create strong opposition. It's like when someone suggested they would use nukes in the caves in Afghanistan.

 

[MarineCorps]

Yeah This is good

 

[Benderino]

A neo-hippie came to my door asking for me to sign a petition against this bill (plus he wanted a donation) I think he was involved in some socialist organization, maybe. But anyway, the nukes are bad, and we have plenty of them, especially it they are just being used to scare people (I hope). We should spend the money on NASA research, or more fuel efficient cars.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I was originally in favor of this weapon, as I believe in having a fully flexible military capable of solving any problem in one of several ways; the decision as to which weapon should be used ought be made on a case-by-case basis when the situation is known, not beforehand.

I still think such weapons should be built; the cost should not be very high. However, in most cases, I would shy away from using a nuclear bunker-buster, mainly because of the risk of long-term contamination of water sources and the such. If they want to go nuclear, I have two words for them: neutron bomb.

 

[Turner]

I'm all for more bang for the buck. But the nuclear option leaves too much behind. . . fallout and radiation are not plusses in my book.

 

[trader/warrior]

why do the US need 7000 nuclear warheads, wouln`t 100 be enough?

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by trader/warrior
why do the US need 7000 nuclear warheads, wouln`t 100 be enough?

$

The US doesn't really need many. The defense industry needs a lot of tax dollars though, and the US War Party needs the defense industry. I suppose you could sculpt mock-up warheads with plaster of paris, and keep doing the same transactions. I'd vote for that.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by trader/warrior
why do the US need 7000 nuclear warheads, wouln`t 100 be enough?

100 Would not be enough. Nuclear weapons can be destroyed by air strikes and/or other methods and therefore you have to have enough to ensure the fatal factor is going to deter. The best plan it to make nuclear weapons obsolete with SDI. The only certain submarine based nukes and terrorist types(which are generally much less powerful) would pose that big of a threat.

 

[Fëanor]

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
The best plan it to make nuclear weapons obsolete with SDI.

SDI can only counter ICBM's , and that not even at 100%

 

[h4ppy]

If they are built and used I hope that people are willing to check if they would contaminate water tables, soil, and underground reasources.

 

[Ian Beale]

I'm in two minds but would support any decision the Bush administration made as they know more on the subject than i do. I don't like the idea of nukes being used, couldn't they develop a conventional weapon to do the same damage?

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by Ian Beale
couldn't they develop a conventional weapon to do the same damage?

The deterrent force of a nuclear weapon is in the horror of massive death and injury it causes. They say Japan was shocked into surrender. The bombs were demonstrated on civilian areas to affect this necessary horror.

We've had the technology to affect these horrors for some time. I suppose we could have employed other devices on the Japanese population, say, by administering corrosive drops to their eyes, blinding them, or by applying flames to their flesh, burning them. We could have marched them through irradiation chambers.

 

[Ian Beale]

Ha ha very amusing. It has taken me time to respond as i've had to compose myself! Couldn't they develop a bomb to destroy bunkers that wasn't a nuclear weapon? I don't like the idea of using nukes today so wondered whether a bomb could be produced that would have the same effect?

 

[Pongui]

There are "deep burrowing" bombs meant to destroy bunkers. They work on the best bunkers (Saddam's was top-notch, and pulverized, he just wasn't in it at the time).

Really, it isn't more firepower the US needs.

Perhaps it would serve certain interests if the US had more means to terrify and cow a population.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Ian Beale
Ha ha very amusing. It has taken me time to respond as i've had to compose myself! Couldn't they develop a bomb to destroy bunkers that wasn't a nuclear weapon? I don't like the idea of using nukes today so wondered whether a bomb could be produced that would have the same effect?

They could, and have these bombs already, but if they were to say, pre-emptively attack north korea, these bombs wouldn't do much, the north koreans have bunkers and structures/stores deep underground. Anyway, the nukes are an abomination, and these bombs would contaminate the surrounding area for years.

And there will be a new nuclear arms race based on the US's pre-emptive attack policy. This policy has created so many problems it's not funny. And nice of them to say that north korea has an unstable leader. I'll have to find out if that is true someday.

 

[Shadylookin]

The Pentagon says conventional firepower can't match the target-destroying capabilities of a nuclear bunker-buster.

I have to disagree. What does a nuclear weapon have that a conventional one doesn't, thats right fallout and radiation. The only thing you need to destroy a bunker would be explosive power, you don't need the radiation. Whatever happend to that bomb we droped on florida that was like 20,000 pounds and not a nuclear weapon. If you can't get my stance from what i'm saying then i'll make it simple this is stupid and the day we use nukes as simple weapons will be a sad day

 

[Xen]

raditation might help to exterminate bio weapons in the bunker- plus it might be smaller, and cheaper (dont know though), although I myself am against the idea as well, other voices just need to be voiced, to get a proper spectrum of ideas

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by Shadylookin
Whatever happend to that bomb we droped on florida that was like 20,000 pounds and not a nuclear weapon.

That was a fuel-air explosion which only works detonated in the atmosphere.

Anyway, this isn't some game where we only get one life and one superduperbomb. No bunker can hold out forever. Time is on our side. And if time isn't on our side, we're doing something very wrong.