| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Science & Technology | |
| US cancels 'mini-nukes' programme | |
| 2005-10-26 | |
| The US has abandoned controversial plans to develop a nuclear "bunker-buster" warhead, a key Republican senator has said. Sen Pete Domenici said funding for the bombs - part of the Energy Department's 2006 budget - had been dropped. He said research would now focus on conventional penetrating weapons. The warhead had been the focus of intense debate in Congress, with opponents arguing against the US developing new nuclear arms. An administration official, speaking on condition on anonymity, confirmed the move to the Associated Press news agency. The Senate had approved $4m in funding for the programme, but it was subsequently blocked by the House of Representatives. Sen Domenici, chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the Department of Energy's budget, said the request for funding had been dropped at the request of the department's National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees nuclear weapons programmes. The proposed nuclear "bunker-busters", also called mini-nukes, would have penetrated bunkers deep underground, including those tunnelled into solid rock. The small nuclear charge would be buried in the explosion, and the fall-out contained. However, critics doubted whether the weapon could go deep enough to contain any fall-out.
| |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #21 Never say never - as in the USDOD there is always CONSOLIDATION and RECONSOLIDATION, espec under so-called "black budgets" or "black ventures". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-10-26 23:44 |
| #20 *sinktrap* |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-10-26 21:50 |
| #19 Great! There is no substitute for a mega-gig ICBM. I love the smell of burning Muslims in the morning. Smells like security. |
| Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2005-10-26 20:49 |
| #18 The dhimmidonks have always been with us. And probably always will be. |
| Posted by: Joter Chort5470 2005-10-26 20:11 |
| #17 We possess the ability to design bunker busters without nuclear warheads. Again, our first use of nuclear weapons OF ANY SORT is a really, really bad idea. Imagine a hyper-sonic third stage missile hitting solid rock at Mach 10 or 40. Something's going to get through the rock ... or crack it. The novel all of you are referring to is "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." I still laugh at how Heinlein wrote about tourists gathering at the announced impact sites, only to be obliterated and how the Earth government used their deaths as a cause for war with the moon. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-10-26 20:02 |
| #16 Actually, with the Air Force talking about anti-matter weapons, those are probably more suitable than uranium/Plutonium versions anyway. And since Anti-Matter weapons are not Nuclear weapons but simply "High Energy" weapons, you can buypass the nuke part. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2005-10-26 19:22 |
| #15 Look up Robert Heinlein. He did it earlier. |
| Posted by: Glinese Clomorong9865 2005-10-26 16:36 |
| #14 Im in favor of thousands and thousands of tiny robots each with an imbeded Predestination Chip. We call it the New Model Army. LOL! {Takes lap around Ranburg in his Triumph} |
| Posted by: Cromwell Cromwell 2005-10-26 16:35 |
| #13 Look up Jerry Pournelle and his books, they take a lot of these ideas and put them into a story. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2005-10-26 16:25 |
| #12 Sounds like a novel I read once. You aren't planning to let your computer declare independence are you? |
| Posted by: Glinese Clomorong9865 2005-10-26 15:58 |
| #11 Rather than putting the launch vehicles into operation to orbit the "Rods From God" aka "Thor" build the production facity on the Moon and launch from there with an electro-magnetic rail gun (hey its my fantasy so I make the rules). Not only do we get a real Moon Base out of the deal we have a real worthwhile reason for the Space Program beyond national prestige. |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2005-10-26 15:32 |
| #10 here's a Rand Corp. discussion of the physics involved in space-based kinetic weapons. A key parameter is the ratio of fuel needed to launch the weapon vs. mass of the weapon. Space-based payloads are, by and large, too expensive by this measure. For a liquid-fueled ballistic missile Rand estimates this ratio to be 16-40:1. Satellites require anywhere from 30-140:1 depending on the orbit chosen. And the better end of that range is achieved with highly elliptical orbits at the cost of long periods when you might not be able to target a specific location on Earth. Rand reports estimates that in Gulf 1 the ratio for bombardments was approximately 40:1, FWIW. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-10-26 15:04 |
| #9 Anonymoose, AFAIK we don't have any launchers capable of handling the freight tonnage at the cost rates needed to make "rods from above" a going concern. |
| Posted by: Phil 2005-10-26 14:47 |
| #8 (cough)don't need it anymore(cough)(cough)rods from god(cough). |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-10-26 13:21 |
| #7 I'd rather we were putting neutron weapons into production. I agree we'll probably have to use nukes before this is over. But no need to break things we may need later andleave a big rad footprint. Anything we develop will be stolen by the ChiComs and passed onto the Islamofascists. Do we really want a mini-nuke coming our way? |
| Posted by: Snans Omick8017 2005-10-26 12:16 |
| #6 Lets replace it with a GRAZER either in space or in a warhead. Burning through the bunker and to the center of the earth (and maybe out the otherside) should solve the problem of any bunker at anydepth. One bunker replaced with a volocano... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-10-26 11:55 |
| #5 I wouldnt sweat this I think I have heard this things last nail in the coffin, this is the 2nd or 3rd time now. It is a political hot potatoe no body wants to hold the Mill will just black op it. Besides I kinda like the idea of having no small nukes because when the terrorist or one of our enemies hit us with WMD chemical or bio or dirty bomb, I think nukes are doubtfull at least for awhile yet, I dont want a limited reaction I want total devistation and if we had say mini nukes more than likly the only retaliation would be a hit on a leadership bunker or two but now with the big boys we are looking at at least one city in full. The opponents of the mini's are crying about the fallout issue which in the 60's 70's was considered insane Mad Max nuke winter crap, of course reality has long proved that overblown remember Chernoboyl estimates were in the thousands for the fallout death of course I think last I heard it was in the tens yes tens not tens of hundreds or thousands either. Of course that is not counting the couple of hundred cough"volunteers" and prisoners the Soviets sent in to put the concrete cap on ground zero. We are considering fall out not the actually hot spot anyway. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2005-10-26 11:41 |
| #4 Guess we'll just have to make due with the maxi-nukes. |
| Posted by: Master of Obvious 2005-10-26 10:58 |
| #3 Also as an aside maybe we should be dusting off the plans for the Grand Slam, Tallboy and the US developed equivilants. These equiped with GPS or laser guidance would be be the next best thing |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2005-10-26 10:42 |
| #2 Politically the cost of these proposed weapons was simply too high IMO. If part of the justification for the Iraq War was WMD's then the US persuing small nucs is not a way to curry the world's favor in some people's opinion. Personally I think in the long run nuclear weapons will be used by the US at the end point of this World War. Sometime, somewhere the Islamofacists will wind up with nucs (either in Pakland or Iran) and will use them. I would rather see us have the option of a measured and the absolute minimum response needed to do the job. |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2005-10-26 10:40 |
| #1 Warning: LONG. Is this "Iraq, the model, NOT?" We have tried to do Iraq with the lightest footprint possible, and things have not exactly been a smashing success. I have a simple hypothesis: Dictators' success generally involves using the LEAST amount of terror possible, and generating the MOST support possible consistent with staying in power and realizing the goals of the dictator. Prediction: it is simply not possible to overthrow a dictator by killing or capturing the major players in the regime. I am certainly not alone in believing that it may be less costly to change a regime when an unfortunately large number of people among the favored to recognize that they have indeed been beaten. The favored, looking at the bunker-buster, might expect that even a nuclear attack would be met with extremely limited retaliation that they would be able to ride out safely. By getting rid of the mini-nuke, we take this option off of the table -- a nuclear attack met with even a relatively small nuclear response would therefore threaten the favored much more, which could actually constrain the dictator's behavior. |
| Posted by: Curt Simon 2005-10-26 10:32 |