# Rumsfeld pushing mini-nukes



## JasonH (12 Feb 2004)

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is backing the creation of a new generation of low-yield nuclear weaponsâ â€dubbed â Å“mini-nukes.â ? The weapons would be used to attack al Qaeda bases in mountainous regions of Afghanistan, where conventional penetration bombs have so far failed to destroy the organization's underground camps.

Details are contained in a top-secret Pentagon document, Future Strategic Strike Force. It has been produced by the Defense Science Board (DSB). It has a Pentagon brief to â Å“transform the nation's armed forces to meet the demands placed on them by a changing world order.â ? The weapons could be tested as early as next year.

Last September, in a barely reported decision, the Senate eased restrictions on nuclear testing at the army's test range in Nevada. No new test has taken place there since 1992. The DSB report was produced by a group of scientists employed at Los Alamos and by Pentagon strategists.

They have concluded that in the war against terrorism, it is â Å“essential to revamp our nuclear arsenal. We envisage a completely new arsenal of small-scale missiles whose explosive impact would be easier to control and which could be targeted against terror groups and small aggressive states.â ?

Though North Korea and Iran are not named, Pentagon sources say that the â Å“mini-nukes would be ideal for targeting them.â ? A copy of the report has already been sent to Israelâ â€and its defense chiefs have expressed â Å“a strong interestâ ? in ordering the mini-nukes. Rumsfeld has himself told senior Defense Department officials that the need for a â Å“bolder approachâ ? in dealing with America's enemies is â Å“now long overdue.â ?

A senior Pentagon analyst said that Rumsfeld told the officials that there is an â Å“urgent need to discard our old Cold War thinking about nuclear weapons only being weapons of mass destruction with widespread fallout. The fact is that America's nuclear capability is a hangover from those days when we had to match the Soviets. What we need now are nuclear weapons that fit into our new security needs. Mini-nuke fallout would be limited to the target area.â ?

During President Bush's visit to London, senior Department of Defense officials, who were traveling with the president, met with their counterparts in Britain's Ministry of Defense to discuss the role Britain can play in having mini-nukes replace the larger nuclear weapons stockpiled from the time of the Cold War. Among the topics on the London agenda were an enhanced mini-neutron bomb and a specifically designed â Å“bunker buster, capable of destroying terrorist cells deep underground.â ?

But already the prospect of mini-nukes has aroused fear and anger among others. During Rumsfeld's visit to Japan and South Korea, he received a cool reception for his plans to launch mini-nukes.

â Å“Such weapons would, in the case of North Korea, produce a massive retaliation from their own nuclear arsenal,â ? said Yoshio Takamara, a Tokyo-based defense analyst. â Å“It would not only be against South Korea and U.S. forces there, but also against Japan. The use of mini-nukes in this region would probably trigger World War III.â ?

The mayor of Hiroshima, Tadatoshi Akiba, told American Free Press: â Å“Any policy of the United States to add to the world's nuclear arsenal is to be deplored. Any attack will surely not stop at one mini-nuke. A dozen of them could cause as much damage as the original atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. We are still the only city that has suffered such unique devastation. And we are still living with the results.â ?

Mohammed el-Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said: â Å“Developing new weapons will only encourage other countries to violate the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.â ?

But all the signs are that Rumsfeld is prepared to have the mini-nukes in place as soon as possible.

----
What do you guys think?


----------



## winchable (12 Feb 2004)

Please, quote the source of your article.


----------



## JasonH (12 Feb 2004)

Trying to find the article myself, think it was a CNN source.


----------



## JasonH (12 Feb 2004)

Hrmmm can‘t seem to find it but I found something to support it.


 http://in.news.yahoo.com/030521/137/24hvx.html 

*U.S. Senate backs Bush on "mini-nukes"*

ADVERTISEMENT

By Vicki Allen 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate voted on Wednesday to require President George W. Bush to obtain congressional approval before developing new classes of smaller nuclear weapons, but allowed the repeal of the decade-long ban on studying and developing them. 

The Bush administration has pushed for a green light to research "mini-nukes," tactical nuclear weapons of five kilotons or less, which Democrats said would spur a new arms race and heighten the risk of nuclear war by raising prospects of their use on battlefields. 

Lobbying on Capitol Hill for pet measures in bills being debated by the Senate and House of Representatives for $400.5 billion in military programs, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the low-yield warheads could be used to destroy weapons facilities that some countries are burying underground. 

While Democrats said this study would only prompt other countries to race to develop similar nuclear weapons, Rumsfeld said, "The fact of the matter is, the world‘s filled with theater nuclear weapons already." 

The low-yield weapons would have one-third or less of the force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War Two, which killed more than 100,000 people. 

Republicans, who control the Senate, rebuffed the Democrats‘ bid to keep the ban on research and development, and a second effort to permit study but bar the next steps to develop the weapons. Instead, senators voted 59-38 to require authorization before proceeding. 

The bill the House is debating would lift the ban on research but keep it on developing the low-yield weapons, similar to the Senate Democrats‘ failed amendment. 

Once the two chambers complete their bills, differences in the measures would be reconciled in a final bill sent to Bush. 


FEARS OF ARMS RACE 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, a Virginia Republican, argued that Congress should not rule out new nuclear weapons, but should keep oversight of them. 

The Bush administration has said it is only interested in researching the low-yield nuclear weapons, not producing or deploying them. 

But Democrats scorned the idea that the administration would put effort into research, with no intention to produce. 

"I don‘t believe it‘s just a study. I believe it‘s an announced intent to begin to generate a new generation of nuclear weapons," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat. 

The Senate on a 56-41 vote also backed continuing research on a high-yield robust nuclear earth penetrating weapon, which Rumsfeld said may deter countries from burying weapons programs far underground. 

Democrats said use of such weapons -- which they said could be up to 70 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb -- should be unthinkable. 

The Senate also narrowly voted to keep some protections for endangered species on military lands that the Pentagon wanted lifted, requiring it to develop Interior Department-approved habitat protection plans with enough funds to enforce them. 

Rumsfeld called that measure "a mistake" that he hoped to change when the bill goes to conference with the House.

----

There‘s more links to back up aswell
 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=rumsfeld+mini-nukes&btnG=Google+Search&meta=


----------



## koalorka (12 Feb 2004)

Thats just great! Another reason why those guys have to get the **** out of power as soon as possible. You‘d think these people would settle on destablizing the Middle East, no. There going for the Gusto!


----------



## DJ (7 Dec 2005)

I'm resurrecting this thread, (currently doing research in this area). 

So far there hasn't been too much debate here about the possible future role of mini-nukes and their benefits or consequences.  On one side, the US government stating that repealing the Furse-Spratt legislation, (what I believe was the legal block impeding mini-nukes), is necessary on the grounds that it would provide greater nuclear flexibility in response to post-Cold War threats.  
However, there are dissenting ideas that predict further nuclear research will undermine any anti-proliferation efforts.  Also, nukes with lower yields may blur the lines between traditional nuclear and conventional weapons, leading to an acceptance of their deployment.  

Opinions on the matter?  Are mini-nukes needed?


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (7 Dec 2005)

If a mini-nuke would be considered a conventional weapon, and the goal of conventional weapons development is to make them stronger and stronger... where does the line get drawn?


----------



## GO!!! (13 Dec 2005)

I think it's great that the US is pursuing this technology.

With the rise of a few new nuclear powers in the east, and those countries overwhelming superiority of numbers in terms of conventional forces, and limited nuclear capability to boot, the ability of the US to use low yield tactical nuclear weapons will provide a strategic edge for outnumbered US troops. 

I would question the wisdom of supplying Israel with them though, as that nation antagonises it's neighbors enough with the nuclear capability it already has.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2005)

using mini-nukes huh.

Sounds like the confedercy
http://www.blizzard.com/ghost/


Given all the protester bitches I can't see something like this ever being employed.  (Outside of the zerg of course)


----------



## geo (13 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I think it's great that the US is pursuing this technology.
> 
> I would question the wisdom of supplying Israel with them though, as that nation antagonises it's neighbors enough with the nuclear capability it already has.


Israel is not the only country to antagonise neighbours far & wide...


----------



## TCBF (13 Dec 2005)

"The mayor of Hiroshima, Tadatoshi Akiba, told American Free Press: "Any policy of the United States to add to the world's nuclear arsenal is to be deplored. Any attack will surely not stop at one mini-nuke. A dozen of them could cause as much damage as the original atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. We are still the only city that has suffered such unique devastation. And we are still living with the results.""¿

- Well, I guess you don't need to learn any Japanese history or geography to be mayor of Hiroshima.  This guy has never heard of Nagasaki?

And the 'po liitle me' just doesn't cut it, in light of the separate nuclear weapons programs of the IJN and Japanese Army in WW2.

Sore losers.

Tom


----------



## geo (13 Dec 2005)

Regardless....
They were employed as "butt party" on the nuke bomb range


----------



## TCBF (13 Dec 2005)

Gotta hand it to'em, though.  Even then, they weren't ready to quit.  

Tom


----------



## DJ (14 Dec 2005)

An update/clarification: 
The mini-nuke project was shelved on 25 Oct 05.  Officially the Department of Energy dropped its request for funding.  Unofficially, it was due to Republicans blocking the funding in the House as a result of pressure from numerous groups, (scientists, physicians, and arms control advocates), (Meconis). 

However, nuclear weapon research is continuing under programs such as the stock steward and management progam.


----------



## TCBF (14 Dec 2005)

Fact is, small warheads have existed for decades.   Look at the stuff - Davy Crockett - the Cdn Army was thinking of leasing before NATO told us we would be better with 'Honest John'.   Also, the warheads on the Genie missle we used wasn't all that big, and 152/155mm arty is Nuclear capable.   So no big deal.

http://www.vialls.com/nuke/nukes1.htm

The fact is, the warheads need re-building periodically anyway - they have a shelf life, and a lot of existing types once existed as a different type in the 50s and 60s.   This is just recycling.

The real challenge isn't miniaturization or accuracy, it's penetration, and there is no international convention barring THAT testing.

Tom

Edit: Better link:

http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.HTM

Tom


----------

