Rumsfeld Seeks to Revive Burrowing Nuclear Bomb

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Rumsfeld Seeks to Revive Burrowing Nuclear Bomb

Bush Budget May Fund Program That Congress Cut

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 1, 2005; Page A02

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sent a memo last month to then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham saying next year's budget should include funds to resume study of building an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon designed to destroy hardened underground targets.

An Energy Department official said yesterday that $10.3 million to restart that study is expected to be included in the Bush administration's budget, which is to be released next week.

The study, which had been undertaken at the Los Alamos, Sandia and Livermore national laboratories, was halted late last year after Congress deleted $27.5 million for it from the fiscal 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

The research project was started in 2002 as a three-year effort to see if an existing nuclear warhead could be fitted with a hardened casing allowing it to dig deep into the earth before exploding. The program has been restricted each year by Senate and House members who have argued that even studying the potential for such a new nuclear weapon undermines Washington's attempts to limit other countries from developing their own nuclear arsenals.

Last year, at the insistence of Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water, Congress cut all money for the program. That came as a reaction to a five-year budget projection by the National Nuclear Security Administration, which runs the nuclear program within the Energy Department, that estimated spending almost $500 million to produce the weapon in the budgets for fiscal 2005 to 2009.

continued

How can or should the US even consider the development of such a weapon in light of our efforts to curtail nuclear proliferation? Is it the do as I say not as I do axiom in play? What is your opinion?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 662 • Replies: 13

No top replies

You may be right. It is nothing but hypocrisy to claim against nuclear proliferation at the same time we intend to increase and improve our nuclear weaponry. Nuclear weapons can only be accepted as a way of defense: using them with attacking purposes is against Ethics. If such weapons are used in a pre-emptive strike, that would mean an irreparable damage to America's high-ground.

0 Replies

I'm all for stopping atomic bomb development, but only if we can get a treaty with the major players in which everybody agrees to stop. and with very agressive and firm verification provisions. And if we sign it and then later anyone violates it, we should renounce the treaty and start development again.

0 Replies

Thomas Hayden
America's high ground no longer exists. Bush trampled it into the ground.

0 Replies

Brandon
What major players are you referring to, that are continuing to develop bigger and more destructive nuclear hardware? I would remind you that the US has the biggest and most sophisticated nuclear arsenal in the world. We could blow up the world many times over. We complain about nuclear proliferation and at the same time look to develop additional nuclear armament. The world judges us by our actions not our words. Is it any wonder why others are attempting to acquire nuclear weaponry?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
What major players are you referring to, that are continuing to develop bigger and more destructive nuclear hardware? I would remind you that the US has the biggest and most sophisticated nuclear arsenal in the world. We could blow up the world many times over. We complain about nuclear proliferation and at the same time look to develop additional nuclear armament. The world judges us by our actions not our words. Is it any wonder why others are attempting to acquire nuclear weaponry?

It would be very stupid to stop atomic weapon research without any assurance that China, Russia, India, Pakistan, are. The thing about these weapons is that even one use of one can strike a crippling blow against an entire country. We continue research to make it less likely that someone else makes a sudden breakthrough and gains a large unilateral advantage. This is a metter of life and death, not some abstract debate. A treaty to stop the research would be welcomed if it were accompanied by sufficient mandatory verification.

Generally what we advocate is:

1. Immediate unilateral disarmament of a certain dictatorships or terrorist allies deemed too dangerous to possess the weapons at all.
2. Mutual disarmament by treaty for everyone else.
3. We encourage anyone who has never had the weapons not to seek them.

We have never pressured the major nuclear powers to disarm unilaterally, although if any of them was stupid enough to, we would probably encourage it. Are you now suggesting that we unilaterally stop updating our weapons technology?

0 Replies

I am suggesting that we should not be asking other nations top do what we will not. As for our technology it is second to none. We do not need bigger and better nuclear weapons. How many times can we blow up the world. The thought that we need it because China and Russia will surpass us if we do not is ludicrous. We have the Bombs and delivery systems to match whatever they can or will develop.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'm all for stopping atomic bomb development, but only if we can get a treaty with the major players in which everybody agrees to stop. and with very agressive and firm verification provisions. And if we sign it and then later anyone violates it, we should renounce the treaty and start development again.

Unfortunately, the Presidential arse in which you kiss on practically a daily basis disolved that treaty with Russia, so it would seem that Bush was mearly paving the way for the highly incompetent Rumsfeld to now start planning more destructive weapons than Saddam could have ever hoped for.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0105-24.htm

0 Replies

In addition if there is to be an arms race Rumsfeld and his simple minded leader will have started it.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

...We have the Bombs and delivery systems to match whatever they can or will develop.

The ability to predict the future is indeed useful and I wish I had it too. When IBM created the first PC, they thought that 640K of RAM is the most anyone would ever needs, since it was 10 times the current maximum offered for home computers.

What if China develops the ability to destroy ICBMs as they lift out of our silos with almost 100% accuracy? Then maybe they forcibly annex Taiwan and dare us to stop them.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Quote:
I'm all for stopping atomic bomb development, but only if we can get a treaty with the major players in which everybody agrees to stop. and with very agressive and firm verification provisions. And if we sign it and then later anyone violates it, we should renounce the treaty and start development again.

Unfortunately, the Presidential arse in which you kiss on practically a daily basis disolved that treaty with Russia, so it would seem that Bush was mearly paving the way for the highly incompetent Rumsfeld to now start planning more destructive weapons than Saddam could have ever hoped for.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0105-24.htm

As far as I recall, the only weapons treaty with Russia we renounced was the ill advisd ABM treaty which banned defensive weapons.

0 Replies

Brandon
And how would building bigger and better nuclear weapons stop China if they went that route. I would note that we the US have in recent times been the agressor. Many nations harbor the fear of the US that you attribute to China and the like.
As for Tiawan that is for those two nations and possibly the UN to settle. It certainly is not worth getting into a war with China over. A war that we could not possibly win.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
And how would building bigger and better nuclear weapons stop China if they went that route.

That particular line of research wouldn't help in that situation, but Rumsfeld's idea is not for larger bombs either. Continued research into all aspects of defense is necessary until treaties can be worked out. As long as our competitors may be updating their weapons systems, we have to.

au1929 wrote:

I would note that we the US have in recent times been the agressor. Many nations harbor the fear of the US that you attribute to China and the like.

Yes, like when we forced Iraq to undo it's annexation of Kuwait, or forced Hussein to abide by the terms of to his surrender treaty. Anyway, these very mutual fears are why we and the others should reduce our arms programs and arms levels by treaty, and not unilaterally.

au1929 wrote:

As for Tiawan that is for those two nations and possibly the UN to settle.

China's settlement plan is probably either to invade Taiwan and annex them by force, or to bully Taiwan, as they have been doing, until Taiwan succumbs and agrees to reunite.

au1929 wrote:

It certainly is not worth getting into a war with China over. A war that we could not possibly win.

I see that you will be able to bear Taiwan's forcible annexation by a dictatorship with remarkable fortitude. I am really bowled over by your sympathy for these peope.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote

Quote:

That particular line of research wouldn't help in that situation, but Rumsfeld's idea is not for larger bombs either. Continued research into all aspects of defense is necessary until treaties can be worked out. As long as our competitors may be updating their weapons systems, we have to.

Brandon as usual you are off target. The particular line of research is what is being questioned in this post

Brandon wrote

Quote:

Yes, like when we forced Iraq to undo it's annexation of Kuwait, or forced Hussein to abide by the terms of to his surrender treaty. Anyway, these very mutual fears are why we and the others should reduce our arms programs and arms levels by treaty, and not unilaterally.

When was it that Viet Nam and Iraq attacked the US? Again the question was not about any reduction of arms level but the further development of a nuclear weapon.

brandon wrote

Quote:

I see that you will be able to bear Taiwan's forcible annexation by a dictatorship with remarkable fortitude. I am really bowled over by your sympathy for these people.

What would you have us do go to war, with China? A war that we could not possibly win even at the cost of millions of people both Chinese and American. Remember, the China is not Iraq. It can defend itself and give as good as it gets. No, Korea has us stepping lightly with is minimal arsenal. Do you think if push came to shove we would go to war with China over Taiwan? Diplomacy is the only way to settle the question. force is not nor can it be the answer.

0 Replies

Rumsfeld Seeks to Revive Burrowing Nuclear Bomb

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know