Tweet
US plans for mini-nuke arsenal revealed
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.
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.
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.
what happened to it? oh well...
Comment