Us defense minister demands the development of tactical nuclear weapons

Bush government declines again due to nuclear weapons rusts

On the 10th. January 2005 sent US Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld A confidential memo to his cabinet colleagues Spencer Abraham, the previous energy minister. The content of the letter is Brisant. Rumsfeld calls for the government to schedule 10.3 million US dollars for the development of new atomic bombs from October 2005 to September 2006 from October 2005 to September 2006. In mid-February, the new energy minister is said to be Samuel W. Bodman bring this budget request in the Congrb, as the Washington post reported. According to the "Democratic peilment" Although the nuclear weapons are in the hands of the US militars, but officially, they are owned by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) within the Energy Ministry, which is stated for their development and maintenance of weapon systems.

It’s about two types of nuclear weapons who want to build the Bush government for a few years (mini-nuke against rogue states): a coal calibrous atomic bomb to crack underground bunker, the so-called robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), and a nuclear Minibombe with a explosive force of less than 5 kilotons for the "discreet" Nuclear.

Both projects were only stopped in November 2004 by Parliament in the adoption of the current budget. Only after months of debates was the US parliamentarians for a termination of the development planes and canceled 36 million dollars from budget design. Nevertheless, this decision was surprise. Only a year earlier, in November 2003, the Congress had definitely decided exactly and an old US ban on the development of Mininukes, the so-called Furse Sprach Amendment of November 1993, canceled.

For the renewed opinion of the parliamentarians in favor of a project stop, several reasons have now been mentioned:

  1. The US government had ared at the beginning of the nineties to produce new nuclear weapons more; Only the modernization of existing systems would be reserved for.
  2. By the construction of Mininukes, the border between the atomic battlefield weapons of low explosive power and conventional bombs was blurred in gross explosive force, which reduced the threshold to the use of nuclear weapons and thus becomes more likely to be a nuclear war.
  3. The construction of a nuclear bunker knack bomb (bunker buster) is military overflowed. To destroy enemy bunkers can be used alternatively conventional precision bombs or the existing atomic bombs.
  4. The construction of an atomic bunker Buster bomb by 2009 costs about $ 500 million in the amptions of medium-term financial planning.
  5. With the construction of microfusion weapons on hafnium-based and specialized bunker buses, the US was able to kindle a new nuclear wettrust.

With its current initiative, Rumsfeld and Spencer speculate on a renewed opinion of the parliamentarians in the Congress where Bush’s Republicans provide the majority fraction. This was allowed to re-established the persistence of the atomic bombs of Prasident George Bush for years (new nuclear weapons should be developed). Bush’s party friend, the Republican deputy David Hobson from Ohio, had only in November the nuclear planes of the US government as "very provocative" designated. they were "An all-too aggressive policy that undermines our moral authority to demand a waiver of nuclear weapons from other states".

Against the background of a threatening American attack against the Iranian nuclear facilities, the facts in the coming months will turn around the militar-political necessity and technical feasibility of bunker snackers: the American journalist Seymour M. Hersh had only pointed out in January in an essay that within the US government pronounces a strong faction for a military lift against Iranian nuclear bomb planning. However, the war planning hints that 25 percent of the goals could not be covered.

These goals in question could either not be accurately identified or not destroyed because they are too deep in the earth. So have the existing conventional precision bombs GBU-28 / B Paveway III "only" A sprinkling charge of 306 kg tritonal and can penetrate 35 meters in loose ground floor. In addition, there are numerous new conventional sprinkles (Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant) and Fire Weapons (High Temperature Incendiary Systems) for the backless destruction of opposing ABC bunkers in development.

In addition, the US Air Force has at least 45 nuclear bunkers by buster bombs long lasted in their arsenal. The B61-11 hydrogen bombs of the StealthBomber B-2 have a variable explosive force of 0.3 to 340 kilotons and can penetrate 7 meters into the ground before they detonate. Thus, the Americans can already completely destroy the pretty much every subterranean target object. Therefore, the question arises why the Bush government wants to develop another bunker buster bomb? The most important argument of the RNEP-examination is that this bomb is intended to penetrate around 15 meters deep in the ground. However, this was not appreciated by the destruction radius, nor could the radioactive fallout be reduced, as a study of nuclear weapons experts of the Natural Resources Defense Council founded May 2003.

Should the congress again in the coming autumn "Tilt" and a continuation of nuclear projects, the three research repeats to the nuclear troubleshooting of Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia Corporation were allowed to continue their joint project studies for the construction of technology demonstrators. It is still unclear whether energy minister Bodman also wants to apply for new funds for the reactivation of the nuclear weapon testing in Nevada and the construction of a factory for the production of plutonium charges for Atomsprengkorper in Los Alamos at Congress. He had also stopped these two atomic projects in November 2004 and thus saved $ 30.5 million. Since 1992, the US has no longer tested new atomic weapon, Bush and Rumsfeld, according to their strategy paper Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of the 8. January 2002 absolutely different (a combination of nuclear and non-nuclear attack and defense disclosures). With their re-election they have four years time.

Gerhard Piper is a member of the Berlin Information Center for Transatlantic Security

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: