Posted on 23-9-2003
Dumb
Bombs
Mother Jones | Editorial , 19 September 2003
Is the war on terror fuelling a nuclear arms
race? Looks like it: The United States is moving to invest millions
in a new generation of nukes; Syria, Iran and North Korea are
reportedly busy with weapons programs; and Saudi Arabia is taking
a serious look at joining the ranks of the nuclear-armed
On Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Senate
rejected a Democratic measure aimed at blocking funding for
research into low-grade nuclear "bunker- buster" bombs
and tactical "mini nukes." The 53-41 vote doles out
more than $20 million to the Department of Energy for nuclear
weapons research, and OKs the resumption of underground nuclear
tests. The issue is red hot and highly controversial: in July
the House voted to cut funding for the research, over objections
from the Bush administration. The measure now goes to a House-Senate
conference, with the energy department likely to get some, if
not all, of the funds requested.
Edward Kennedy, the senator co-sponsoring
the resolution to nix the research, explained that the U.S.
can hardly expect other countries to hold back on nuclear weapons
if we don't.
"At the very time when we are urging
other nations to halt their own nuclear weapons programs, the
administration is rushing forward to develop our own new nuclear
weapons."
Fans of the bunker-busters and mini-nukes,
like Sen. Pete Domenici (also known as the "patron saint"
of the nuclear industry) say advanced weapons research is needed
to give U.S. policymakers new options in the war against terrorism,
and that scientists need the freedom to look ahead at America's
future national security needs. "Let [nuclear scientists]
think, let those people design," he said. "Don't put
mental blinkers and blinders on their brains."
But Kennedy, who warned that "a nuclear
arms race" could result, was backed up by co-sponsor Sen.
Diane Feinstein:
"By seeking to develop new nuclear weapons
ourselves we send a message that nuclear weapons have a future
battlefield role and utility."
The world will watch and the world will respond,
and the way they will respond is with a new nuclear arms race.
How long will it take for India and Pakistan to say, 'We should
do the same thing'? How long will it take North Korea and Iran?"
As if on cue, it emerged this week that Saudi
Arabia is looking into nuclear weapons program of its own.
The Guardian of London reported that Crown
Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz has responded to the destabilization
of the Middle East by launching a strategic review of the nation's
defense system. This review will pursue three defense options:
acquiring nuclear capability as a deterrent, entering an alliance
with a protecting nuclear power, or achieving a regional anti-nuclear
treaty. The Guardian reports that the Saudi decision marks a
drastic change in Washington-Riyadh relations.
"Until now, the assumption in Washington
was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear
umbrella. But the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the
US has steadily worsened since the September 11 attacks on New
York and Washington: 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi.
Saudi Arabia does not regard Iran, a past
adversary with which Riyadh has restored relations, as a direct
threat. But it is unnerved by the possibility of Iran and Israel
having nuclear weapons. "
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's eastern neighbors
look to be dabbling in nuclear weaponry. Iran is under increasing
heat from the international community to come clean about its
nuclear energy program, which the International Atomic Energy
Agency says is a cover for developing nukes. On Thursday, Iran's
foreign minister complained that European Union requests for
the state to cooperate with the U.N. were not founded on "mutual
respect."
And the U.S. has lately been warning Syria
to abandon its presumed nuclear ambitions. Not to mention North
Korea, of course, which has perhaps one, or maybe even six,
nuclear weapons.
Given all this, it seems an odd time to commit
to researching nuclear weaponry.
"Mini nukes" and "bunker-busters"
are scary because, as well as being nuclear, they're portable.
Modeled on a conventional weapon used in the U.S. strikes against
Iraq and Afghanistan, the bunker-buster, or Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator, is designed to detonate deep in the earth and vaporize
potential stocks of underground weapons. "Mini nukes"
are for tactical battlefield use.
While some argue that the weapons would be
useful, many think the risk of fueling a nuclear arms race is
too great. In August USA Today editorialized that developing
the bunker-buster was moving modern warfare in the wrong direction.
"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."
Boosters say the bombs' radioactive elements
will stay underground, but some scientists aren't buying it.
Martin Butcher the director of security programs at Physicians
for Social Responsibility, a Washington-based advocacy group,
told the Asia Times that these bombs present the possibility
of nuclear fallout.
"Constraints of physics stop bunker
busters from being effective, as there are limits to how far
the bomb can penetrate. In order to hit the deepest bunker --
meaning 20-30 feet -- it has to be a large bomb to send shock
waves to penetrate down...However, this will lead the fireball
to disperse and radiate dust particles up into the atmosphere,
creating a dirty bomb - the most dangerous weapon there is...These
questions just weren't addressed by those who are in charge
of the development of these weapons."
But ultimately, Butcher told the Times, U.S.
resumption of nuclear testing will destroy the relevance of
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
With the rapid deterioration of U.S. relations
with the Arab world (make that the world, period), moving forward
on nuclear research seems provocative, to say the least
|