US plans for mini-nuke arsenal revealed

DinoDoc · February 20, 2003, 01:50

Quote:

A leaked Pentagon document has confirmed that the US is considering the introduction of a new breed of smaller nuclear weapons designed for use in conventional warfare. Such a move would mean abandoning global arms treaties.

The document, obtained by the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear weapons watchdog based in the US, describes plans for a gathering of senior military officials and nuclear scientists at the US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska, during the week of 4 August.

The meeting would discuss further development, testing and introduction of a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons. These weapons, with a destructive power of less than five kilotons, could be designed to penetrate an underground bunker before detonating. The Hiroshima bomb dropped by the US in 1945 had a yield of about 15 kilotons.

The US military believes mini-nukes may provide a stronger deterrent to rogue states. This is because the US would be more willing to use them than standard nuclear weapons, which have yields of hundreds of kilotons.

US government officials have confirmed the authenticity of the document, but say that it covers "very long range planning" and "what-if scenarios".

Enhanced radiation

Also on the agenda for the August meeting would be enhanced radiation weapons, also known as neutron weapons. These produce a large amount of radiation without a devastating blast and can be used to decimate weapons stockpiles and troops without destroying much infrastructure.

Patrick Garrett, an analyst with the military think-tank GlobalSecurity.org, says the document is alarming. "It's like looking at the cold war all over again," he told New Scientist.

"The fact that they're actually going to sit down and to talk about reliability issues and what would need to happen for production, testing and guidance, means these people are particularly serious about deploying these things sometime very soon," he says.

Garrett adds that the long-term implications of contaminating a target with radiation may not be well understood. "I don't think these people understand that any use of a nuclear weapon is a bad use," he says.

Treaty threat

The Los Alamos Study Group also condemns the plans for threatening international non-proliferation agreements. Greg Mello, head of LASG, says: "It is impossible to overstate the challenge these plans pose to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the existing nuclear test moratorium, and US compliance with Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which is binding law in the US."

Recent US interest in the development of smaller, more targeted nuclear weapons is well documented. New Scientist reported in October 2000 that the US Defense Appropriations Bill ordered a study of the feasibility of low-yield nuclear weapons. This overturned a ban on research into the development of battlefield nuclear weapons imposed in 1993.

In November 2002, New Scientist also reported a further $15m in US government funding for research into a nuclear "bunker buster", called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993414

Let's see if we can keep the thread open this time since it copycat thread this time.

Now to anyone that knows, "How will this proposed nuke compare to the B61-11?"

Feel free to bring up any other issues you want.

Bosh · February 20, 2003, 01:52

hasn't there been interest in these sort of nukes floating around since the 50s?

Jon Miller · February 20, 2003, 01:53

I am in favor of defensive techs like the anti-balistic missles

I am not in favor of this

nukes should not be used except at last resort I believe

the only time the US should use them (in the current world) is if it is being attacked by nukes (or aliens)

Jon Miller

chequita guevara · February 20, 2003, 01:58

This isn't new news. Bush was talking about this before 9/11.

What is it with Republicans wanting to use Weapons of Mass Destruction?

DinoDoc · February 20, 2003, 02:00

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This isn't new news. Bush was talking about this before 9/11.

People are treating it as such though. I saw an aborted thread here and one at CGN on it.

DuncanK · February 20, 2003, 02:02

It has to do with a certain part of the male anatomy, or lack of I should say. Oh wait, these are mini-nukes. Nevermind, I have no idea what this is about.

Nubclear · February 20, 2003, 02:28

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What is it with Republicans wanting to use Weapons of Mass Destruction?

When it comes to humans, we can use a small scale, like this:

-------------------------------------------

On the right side of the scale is a complete lack of any higher brain functions. The more left you go, the more empathic, intelligent, etc you get.

Republicans tend to be on the far right side.

Kramerman · February 20, 2003, 02:35

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

People are treating it as such though. I saw an aborted thread here and one at CGN on it.

I was about to mention that i thought there was already a thread on this

what happened to it? oh well...

DinoDoc · February 20, 2003, 14:28

Bump.

Gatekeeper · February 20, 2003, 14:35

I'd rather spend the money on anti-missile technology and enhanced security against other terrorist threats.

Hmm ... what's the difference between a suitcase nuke and one of these mini-nukes? Just a matter of delivery method?

Gatekeeper

GePap · February 20, 2003, 14:41

This is an absurd notion: does anyone here think that most people around the world will care if the nuke used is Mini or not? You start saying you will consider using nukes, and everyone else wil say that they might need their own.

This is as calamitous a policy as the Us could take with respect to the notion of disarmament and non-proliferation.

mactbone · February 20, 2003, 15:03

It makes senes in that instead of nuking an enourmous area, you nuke a much smaller area, or at least have the ability to threaten that. Anyway, at this point it's theoretical - at the next point it's a possibility - nowhere is it an eventuality.

Personally I'd rather the government at least research things of this nature - production is by no means necessary but the knowledge is.

DinoDoc · February 20, 2003, 15:05

Quote:

Originally posted by MacTBone
It makes senes in that instead of nuking an enourmous area, you nuke a much smaller area, or at least have the ability to threaten that. Anyway, at this point it's theoretical - at the next point it's a possibility - nowhere is it an eventuality.

IIRc, we already have one that already does this that came into being in the Clinton administration. Hence the question I asked in my first post.

Wittlich · February 20, 2003, 15:14

Well, I say that if a nuclear weapon is used - and it doesn't matter was "size" it is - "Pandora's Box" would be thrown wide open.

Sandman · February 20, 2003, 15:19

Great, even more weapons for terrorists to steal.

Arrian · February 20, 2003, 15:57

Yeah, and that SAC general (was it LeMay?) forwarded a plan for a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia and China back in the 1950s or 60s, and it didn't happen. Not that the fact that such a plan was drafted isn't scary (Strangelove, anyone?), but so far such wacky ideas have gotten shot down. I think this one will be too.

-Arrian

Az · February 20, 2003, 16:15

I hope this is never implemented.