IP: Low-Yield Nukes?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "Roch Ripley" <the_roch () hotmail com>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
>
> Dave,
>
> Just read this off AP ... I believe this is one step too far.
>
> ---
>
> Wednesday, Dec 19, 2001, 12:19 pm EST
>
> Low-Yield Nuclear Device Considered
> Associated Press
> By H. JOSEF HEBERT
> -----------------------------
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense officials are considering the possibility of
> developing a low-yield nuclear device that would be able to destroy deeply
> buried stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons.
>
> Such a move would require Congress to lift a 1994 ban on designing new
> nuclear warheads.
>
> In a report to Congress, the Defense Department argues that conventional
> weapons, while effective for many underground enemy targets, would be unable
> to destroy the most deeply protected facilities containing biological or
> chemical agents.
>
> In recent years there has been a growing unease that terror groups or
> unfriendly, newly nuclear-capable states may be hiding weapons of mass
> destruction, including chemical and biological weapons, in deep underground
> facilities.
>
> In the report sent to Congress in October, the Defense Department said a
> low-yield, less than five-kiloton, nuclear warhead coupled with new
> technology that allows bombs to penetrate deep underground before exploding
> could prove effective in destroying biological and chemical agents.
>
> Although not formally engaged in developing a new warhead design, nuclear
> scientists ``have completed initial studies on how existing nuclear weapons
> can be modified` for use to destroy deeply buried targets containing
> chemical or biological weapons, the report said. Studies include ``synergies
> of nuclear weapons yield, penetration, accuracy and tactics,` it said.
>
> Conventional weapons cannot destroy the most deeply buried chemical and
> biological holding facilities, the report concludes, but a low-yield nuclear
> device could do the job. It notes that the current nuclear arsenal was ``not
> designed with this mission in mind.`
>
> The report was submitted in response to a congressional directive that the
> Pentagon report what it was doing to develop ways to attack stores of
> chemical and biological weapons and also contains updates on a number of
> programs involving conventional weapons.
>
> The report shows the Bush administration views a nuclear strike as ``an
> intrinsic part` of dealing with deeply entombed enemy targets and ``is
> essentially doing all the preparation` for a future full-scale research and
> development program for a new mini-nuclear warhead, said Martin Butcher,
> director of security programs at the Physicians for Social Responsibility.
>
> This kind of warhead is ``the dirtiest kind of all. It`s highly
> radioactive,` said Butcher, whose group has been a leading voice in the
> nuclear nonproliferation debate. Development of such a bomb would send the
> wrong signals and would add to the risk of nuclear proliferation, he said.
>
> A low-yield nuclear weapon generally is considered to be no more than five
> kilotons. By comparison, the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of
> World War II were about 15 kilotons each.
>
> The report sent to key committees in Congress by Defense Secretary Donald H.
> Rumsfeld in October provides a general outline of U.S. capabilities for
> dealing with what defense officials believe is a growing gap in U.S.
> military response.
>
> The House International Relations Committee is pressing for renewed U.N.
> inspections in Iraq on the belief that it has rebuilt its nuclear,
> biological and chemical weapons programs since President Saddam Hussein`s
> government stopped allowing inspections in 1998.
>
> Notes and diagrams found in houses vacated by al-Qaida fighters in
> Afghanistan also point to an effort to create weapons of mass destruction.
>
> The report said enhancements expected to be completed by 2005 to an array of
> conventional weapons, including laser-guided bombs and cruise missiles,
> should be able to destroy most underground facilities. But it maintains such
> weapons cannot penetrate the deepest facilities.
>
> The report acknowledges that any decision to proceed with a nuclear device
> for attacking underground targets would be considered within the
> administration`s broader plans for the nuclear stockpile and overall nuclear
> weapons policy.
>
> It said a joint nuclear-planning board already has been established to
> examine the use of nuclear weapons as bunker-busters.
>
> The idea of using low-yield nuclear warheads to attack deeply buried enemy
> targets has been discussed for years. It was the subject of a classified
> study concluded in 1997 and has been frequently discussed by nuclear weapons
> scientists at the Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories.
>
> The essence of the report sent to Congress was reported Tuesday by The
> Albuquerque Journal. A copy was distributed by Nuclear Watch of New Mexico,
> based in Santa Fe, on its Web site.
>
> The report had been requested by Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Wayne Allard,
> R-Colo., and was part of this year`s defense authorization legislation.
>
> ---
>
> Regards,
> Roch
>
> --
> Roch Ripley <rjripley () sfu ca>
> Engineering Science Undergrad
> Simon Fraser University
> --

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/