|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Study Finds Nuclear Bunker Buster Effective, but With Collateral Damage By Marina Malenic WASHINGTON — An earth-penetrating nuclear weapon that detonates underground could destroy chemical or biological agents contained in deeply buried facilities, but could also cause significant fatalities in the surrounding area, says a new report from the National Research Council (see GSN, March 3). Many countries use underground facilities to conceal and protect military personnel, weapons and equipment. Some 10,000 “hard and deeply buried targets” exist in the territory of potential adversaries, according to U.S. Defense Department estimates. Most such facilities are beyond the reach of conventional weapons, according to the report, and could only be destroyed by nuclear weapons. An earth-penetrating nuclear weapon would also provide an alternative to a high-yield, above-ground nuclear blast, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday at a hearing on Capitol Hill where he sought $8.5 million in fiscal 2006 funding, split between the Energy and Defense department budgets, for research on the “bunker buster” weapon. “There are some 70 countries that are currently pursuing underground programs,” he said. “So, the question comes, what ought our country to do about that, or do we want to think about … the idea of having a capability of dealing with that? … The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons. So, the choice is, do we want to have nothing and only a large, dirty nuclear weapon, or would we rather have something in-between,” he said. Last year, Congress rejected the Bush administration’s request to fund the study after a key Republican House member questioned the need for developing a new nuclear weapon (see GSN, Feb. 4). Apart from the BLU-118B thermobaric bomb — a non-nuclear bomb that can produces high pressure and heat — conventional weapons are unlikely to be effective in destroying buried stocks of chemical or biological agents, the report says. The higher radiation doses and much higher temperatures associated with a nuclear detonation would likely be more effective in destroying chemical or biological materials. That holds true, though, only if the warhead detonates in the chamber where the agents are stored, according to the report. An earth-penetrating weapon is designed to detonate underground after surviving impact and penetration. Using a lower-yield nuclear weapon that explodes underground would produce two to 10 times fewer civilian casualties than would a surface nuclear explosion, the study found. An earth-penetrating nuclear weapon is not, however, expected to dig deep enough to fully contain a blast. Thousands to more than 1 million people could die following a strike on a heavily populated urban area, depending on the weapon’s nuclear yield, the report states. Deaths in a less-populated area could range from hundreds to thousands. “You can use a much smaller weapon if you use an earth penetrator, maybe 20 times smaller, but you will kill a lot of people, because it puts out a huge amount of radioactive debris,” said John Ahearne, chairman of the committee that produced the report, according to the Washington Post. Fatalities could be further reduced if military commanders issued warnings and allowed civilians to evacuate. Wind conditions could also be evaluated, allowing military commanders to choose conditions likely to minimize civilians’ exposure to fallout, according to the study.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
