|
Oppose Nuclear "Bunker Buster" Bomb
|
Progressive Portal
|
Apr 25, 2002 10:49 PDT
|
CUT FUNDING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A "ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR"
[From the Friends Committee on National Legislation,
<http://www.fcnl.org/>]
Action on this alert may be taken at:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=140814&type=CO
In its FY2003 budget request, the Bush administration is asking for
$15.5 million for a study of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP).
The RNEP would be designed to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets
such as bunkers containing chemical and biological weapons.
Because of its lower yield and earth penetrating capability, the RNEP is
considered to be a more "useable" nuclear weapon than large yield,
"strategic" nuclear weapons. However, reports by scientists indicate
that the RNEP is far from being a "clean" weapon. If detonated in an
urban setting, 10,000 to 50,000 people would receive a fatal dose of
radiation within the first 24 hrs. This does not take into account
traumatic injuries arising from the extreme pressures of the blast or
thermal injuries arising from the heat of the explosion. Nor does the
casualty estimate consider the consequences of fires and the collapse of
buildings from the seismic shock that the explosion would produce.
Moreover, proceeding with the production of RNEPs would significantly
undermine the global non-proliferation regime because the obvious
targets for these weapons are non-nuclear weapon states. The Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) prohibits the use of nuclear weapons
against such states.
Rep. Edward Markey (MA) has drafted a "Dear Colleague" letter to the
chairs of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Energy and
Water Appropriations Subcommittee, urging them to eliminate funding for
this weapon. He is soliciting signatures from his fellow
representatives.
ACTION: Contact your representative. Ask her or him to sign Rep.
Markey's "Dear Colleague" letter.
USE FCNL'S WEB SITE TO MAKE LETTER-WRITING EASIER: Start with the sample
letter posted in our Legislative Action Center, personalize the
language, then send your message as an email or fax directly from our
site. You can also print it out and mail it. To view a sample letter to
your representative, click on the link below, then enter your ZIP Code
and click <Go> in the <Take Action Now> box. Here is the link:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=140814&type=CO
BACKGROUND: The U.S. introduced an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon in
1997, the B61, modification 11. The B61-11 modified a nuclear explosive
from an earlier bomb by putting it into a hardened steel casing with a
new nose cone to provide ground penetration capability. The deployment
was controversial because of official U.S. policy not to develop new
nuclear weapons. The Department of Energy and the national weapons labs
have consistently argued, however, that the B61-11 was merely a
"modification" of an older delivery system because it used an existing
warhead.
According to Rob Nelson of the Federation of American Scientists, "The
earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited...Tests
show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from
an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground
before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is
transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to
use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive
civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield
range, the nuclear blast would simply blow out a huge crater of
radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a
large area." (For more information, visit
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm)
The development of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator would also have
disastrous consequences for the international arms control regime. A
nuclear weapon designed for battlefield use would increase the
perception that nuclear weapons were as usable as any other part of the
U.S. conventional weapons arsenal and that the U.S. was preparing to use
them. If the U.S. proceeds with these weapons, other nations with far
less conventional capability will seek to deter a U.S. attack by
developing their own weapons of mass destruction, most likely chemical
or biological weapons.
The U.S. and other nuclear weapon states pledged in 1995 not to use
nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states (with certain
exceptions), as an inducement for those non-nuclear weapon states to
agree to extend, indefinitely, the NPT. Therefore, the development or
testing of these weapons would be a de facto repudiation of these
assurances. To quote Rep. Markey in his letter, "the RNEPs may offer
marginal military benefits at best while imposing major costs and
risks."
|
|
 |
|
