|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
United States: New Nuclear Weapons Might Not Be Worth the Tradeoff By David McGlinchey A small nuclear device detonated inside a facility does have the exceptional ability to take out dangerous chemical and biological agents, says the report, Fire in the Hole: Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Options for Counterproliferation, which was written by Michael Levi, director of the Strategic Security Project at the Federation of American Scientists. Nevertheless, the United States can still achieve its ends — destroying hard and deeply buried targets — with a more measured and accurate non-nuclear approach, the report says. Reacting to the 2002 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review — which suggested an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon might be beneficial — Levi compared the military benefit and drawbacks of developing and potentially using small, specialized nuclear weapons. Congress cautiously approved $15 million dollars for a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator in the 2003 defense spending bill, which would also require the Defense Department to address how the weapons would be used and whether conventional arms could achieve the same ends (see GSN, Oct. 10). “New weapons might require nuclear testing, which would break America’s self-imposed testing moratorium and weaken international norms against the testing of nuclear weapons,” Levi wrote (see GSN, Oct. 22). “Many argue that the military advantages to be gained by building new nuclear weapons outweigh these liabilities,” he added. Nuclear vs. Conventional Weapons The destructive power of large nuclear weapons is “unmatched by even the most advanced non-nuclear weapons,” the report says. Conventional weapons, however, may match the effectiveness of smaller nuclear weapons, it says. Many underground facilities cannot be destroyed by current or prospective nuclear weapons, either because a weapon detonated near an urban center would cause widespread civilian deaths or because the radiation from a nuclear explosion in an isolated area could hinder the movement of friendly troops, according to the report. Nuclear weapons can neutralize chemical and biological weapons even if they are detonated outside some facilities, the report says. It is unclear, however, whether civilians in the area would suffer less from nuclear fallout or from biological and chemical agents that escape a facility. Conventional weapons can effectively destroy biological agents, but might not be as effective against tougher chemical agents, according to the report. A small nuclear device that explodes within a facility has “unique capabilities for simultaneous neutralization of chemical and biological agents” and at the same time can “avoid spreading substantial nuclear fallout,” the report says. Increase Effectiveness of Conventional Weapons Conventional weapons become dramatically more effective with a focus on increased intelligence, and nuclear weapons become much less effective without it, the report says. “Even the most powerful nuclear weapons cannot destroy bunkers tunneled under just 400 meters of granite,” the report says. “A focus on intelligence, particularly in identifying targets and localizing their entrances, will be more difficult to counter,” it adds. Levi also noted that what nuclear weapons can destroy in one strike, conventional weapons can wipe out with many air attacks — a luxury that U.S. air superiority allows. He faulted the goal of finding a weapon to defeat chemical and biological weapons simultaneously. “Because chemical weapons are much more difficult to destroy than biological agents, the requirement for a universal weapon undermines the pursuit of approaches that might succeed against biological agents,” Levi wrote. The United States should focus on destroying biological agents such as smallpox because the “potential for collateral damage from dispersal of chemical weapons is much lower than that from biological weapons,” he added. The report cautions that conventional weapons can be critically evaluated in war games and exercises, but nuclear weapons are only supported based on their theoretical benefits. “The valuable taboo against the use of nuclear weapons perversely shields these weapons from the same examination during their development that all other weapons receive,” the report says. “If civilian leaders decide to consider pursuit of new nuclear weapons, uniformed military must subject these weapons concepts to the same scrutiny they apply to other weapons systems,” it says.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
