Know Your Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators

13 Comments

1. 

   idredit on April 11, 2006 at 4:27 pm

   Thinkprogress helpfully points us to comforting statements.

   Not to worry. Rumsfeld speaking on Iran said we’re

   [..]

   RUMSFELD: You know, someone comes up with an idea, runs it in a magazine or a paper; other papers pick it up and reprint it; editorialists, then, say
   Oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling, and opine on this and opine that….But it is just simply not useful to get into fantasyland.

   Go read Rumsfeld on Iran Today = Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2002

   Just fantasyland, wild speculation.

      

   • 

     Chris on April 11, 2006 at 4:31 pm

     Oh good. I feel much better now. I love fantasyland!

2. 

   McGirk SF on April 11, 2006 at 6:15 pm

   quit being a bitch and pill me up!

3. 

   Meteor Blades on April 11, 2006 at 6:16 pm

   …these are no longer any worry because Congress has…ahem…shot them down.

   However, the folks at Jane’s, the authoritative British weapons experts, said in November [subscribers only]:

   In late October, US Congressional leaders agreed to withhold USD4 million requested by the US administration to complete pre-engineering studies into the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). Although it has been widely reported that the programme has now been cancelled, there is evidence that the RNEP project may yet continue under a new name.

   The body in charge of US nuclear weapons programmes, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which operates within the US Department of Energy, has stated it wants to complete the RNEP study at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, as planned, but with Pentagon funding. It proposes renaming the study. Although the NNSA had asked to drop Energy Department funding, reflecting a “change in policy” favouring research into conventional penetrator options, the nuclear option may not have been abandoned. The RNEP programme may be as much motivated by the development of new technology directly applicable to a new generation of lower-yield nuclear weapons, as by the perceived military need for a weapon that is able to destroy hard and deeply buried targets (HDBTs).

   The conventional weapon is to undergo a ‘sled test’ early in 2006, in which a mock warhead will be slammed into a huge block of concrete at high speed to test impact. The results could guide government policy to fully developing either a conventional or nuclear earth penetrator. Much depends on whether the penetrator shell contains a mock nuclear warhead, as originally planned, or a mock conventional warhead. A mock nuclear warhead would signal the intention to continue the RNEP programme under a conventional guise. However, some insiders believe that further attempts to get additional funding approved in Congress may come up against the same obstacles as before.

   Check out my January Diary here or my Monday Diary here to see a Physicians for Social Responsibility assessment of the human effects of a large RNEP in Isfahan.

   • 

     Arcturus on April 11, 2006 at 7:39 pm

     There will be a conventional bomb detonated at teh Nevada Test Site in June that is clearly intended to provide seismic data on a ‘bunker-buster.’ DKos conventioneers should be able to witness a mushroom cloud from Vegas.

   • 

     Chris on April 12, 2006 at 12:14 am

     Thank you for those two wonderful diaries Meteor Blades.  This is way off topic (as if I care), but I’m a big fan of your writing, and I’m blushing  more than just a little that you left a comment on my crappy little post. Thanks.

4. 

   Arcturus on April 11, 2006 at 7:27 pm

   hope you’ll forgive me piling on this OT, but related topic:

   Condi was in Congress last week shillling for the deal. Democrats are divided over it.

   from The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) petition page:

   The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) believes that a nuclear technology trade agreement with India is contrary to the long-term security of the United States, India and the world. The Bush administration has submitted a bill to Congress, HR 4974, which revokes Congressional review and evaluation of any future nuclear trade deal with India. We need your help to defeat this legislation.

   The FAS enthusiastically supports much stronger ties with the world’s largest democracy. There are myriad areas in which cooperation between India and the United States should be improved, including trade, technology, education, and security. Nuclear trade is unnecessary and ill-advised.

   Allowing India to bypass the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) weakens the entire international non-proliferation effort. While the NPT is not perfect, it should be strengthened, not undermined. Moreover, the United States cannot rightfully criticize India’s nuclear program while at the same time developing a national security strategy that increases the emphasis on nuclear weapons. We believe that the United States should withhold nuclear cooperation from India and work vigorously with other nuclear powers to dramatically reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons.

   Much was made of the Indian nuclear “deal” but there isn’t really a deal, yet. President Bush and Prime Minister Singh agreed — in principle — to develop a nuclear technology trade agreement, but the details must be worked out over months. Normally, any agreement would be subject to Congressional review. But H. R. 4974 makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to object to whatever the deal turns out to be. In essence, the Congress is being asked to approve a nuclear trade agreement with India months in advance, sight unseen. Even those who support some, but not all, types of possible nuclear agreements with India should oppose this bill that will eviscerate Congressional oversight powers.

   Encourage your members of Congress to vote against H.R. 4974.

5. 

   GreyHawk on April 11, 2006 at 10:29 pm

   Thanks for posting this.  🙂

   • 

     Chris on April 11, 2006 at 11:46 pm

     I often feel like a fool posting anything, so a little encouragement goes a long way. Thanks.

6. 

   high5 on April 12, 2006 at 6:43 am

   If anyone looked at the animations, it does seem kind of strange the nuclear fallout from a possible strike on Iran are depicted to be only eastward over Afghanistan/Pakistan/India doesn’t it?

   From a relatively recent experience, Chernobyl, most of the fallout was to the west over Europe.

   Is this the way they hide that a neuclear eexplosion in Iran would be a major disaster for, among several countries, Israel?