Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article Published on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 by the Agence France Presse Rumsfeld Asks for Restoration of Nuclear 'Bunker Buster' Program WASHINGTON - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asked for the restoration of a research program designed to create a new type of nuclear weapons capable of destroying hardened underground targets, a Pentagon official said. The request came in a letter Rumsfeld sent to then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on January 10, in which he insisted that funds for studying the feasibility of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator be restored. A nuclear explosion over Mururoa atoll. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asked for restoration of a supersecret research program designed to create a new class of nuclear weapons capable of destroying hardened underground targets. (AFP photo) "The Defense Department does support completion of the penetrator study," Major Paul Swiergosz, a department spokesman, told AFP. "We can't necessarily match Cold War weapons to the new threats. We have to adapt capabilities that we have to meet the threats." A spokesman for the Department of Energy that runs US nuclear weapons research declined to say what the response would be. Abraham was replaced by Samuel Bodman on January 11. But military experts said they were expecting a new attempt by the administration of President George W. Bush to revive the "bunker buster" nuclear weapons program that was shelved by Congress late last year under growing international and domestic criticism. Republican Representative David Hobson, who chairs an appropriations subcommittee in the House of Representatives, quietly removed 27.5 million dollars earmarked for the bomb study from a mammoth spending bill that was being rushed through Congress. The White House apparently made an election-year decision not to hold up the whole budget because of one contentious item, and let it pass. But now, according to Swiergosz, the Pentagon wants the money back because the bomb could be useful against underground enemy weapons depots and command posts. "I think we should request funds in FY06 and FY07 (fiscal years 2006 and 2007) to complete the study," Rumsfeld wrote to Abraham, according to published excerpts of the letter, whose accuracy was confirmed by the spokesman. "Our staffs have spoken about funding the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) study to support its completion by April 2007." Rumsfeld also assured Abraham and his successor, Samuel Bodman, that they could count on his support for "your efforts to revitalize the nuclear weapons infrastructure and to complete the RNEP study." The program, involving leading US nuclear weapons laboratories such as Los Alamos and Livermore, sought to find the possibility of converting into "bunker busters" two existing warheads - the B61 and B83, according to administration officials. The B61 is a tactical thermonuclear gravity bomb that can be delivered by strategic as well as tactical aircraft -- from B-52 and B-2 bombers to F-16 fighter jets. The B83 is designed for precision delivery from very low altitudes, most likely by B-2 stealth bombers, military experts said. Prior to the program's suspension, scientists were working on finding ways to harden the bombs' shells so they can survive penetration through layers of rock, steel and concrete before detonating, the experts said. "Bunker busters" are seen by some experts as important tools for waging preventive wars against enemies that are secretly building arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, at least 10,000 bunkers currently exist in over 70 countries around the world. More than 1,400 of them are used as strategic storage sites for weapons of mass destruction, concealed launch pads for ballistic missiles as well as leadership or top-echelon command and control posts, the DIA estimates. However, International Atomic Energy Agency director, Mohamed ElBaradei, warned this week that the "bunker buster" program was sending "the wrong message" and could hinder international non-proliferation efforts. "You can't tell everyone 'don't touch nuclear weapons' while continuing to build them," ElBaradei said in an interview with The Washington Post newspaper and Newsweek magazine. Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse Can someone explain to me why in a post cold war era, Bush wants to change the nuclear position of america, that is not do develop new types of nuclear weapons, that has been supported by every president for 40 yrs. Are there really any bunkers in 3rd world oil produceing nations that we could not take out already?
911 changed everything. Those who stay on our good side need not worry. It doesn't really add that much to our debt, really. They hate our love of freedom, which is never free.
What a waste of money and a stupid idea. We can never use them anyway, so there is no point in developing them. We should be reducing the size of our nuclear arsenal, maintaining only a limited number of ICBMs for launch from underground silos and subs. That is enough for deterrence, and we don't need them for anything else.
How do you guys know we won't ever need them? Aren't people always pointing out that "empires" don't last? So at some point, we will be weaker and need to defend ourselves.
We have roughly 10,600 nuclear weapons. I think well will be able to defend ourselves in a nuclear conflict. Also, what is the senario in which we would use this weapon? The ramifications of using such a weapon would make it almost useless. With state of our health care, educational system, social security, and the deficit I think that billion could be better spent. P.S. clutch, love the site, will be a contributor soon.
If you really love Clutch though, at least post the link to the article before this thread gets locked...
Is it hard to think of possible scenarios? For example, China could become a belligerent superpower invading it's neighbors. Those nuclear bunker busters could come in handy. Also, having a strong defense helps our diplomacy. Yes, we should spend on those other things but not at the expense of defense. PS I'm not THE Clutch.
I think we can spend on defense and not change the stand on nukes. As far as diplomacy and a strong defense, I think with our current stockpile of nukes and weaponry we get the maximum bang for our buck. It's not someone would want to take us now, but all of a sudden become scared because of some new nukes. They are already well aware of our capability. If our military wasn't spread thin, we could take on China. We have the nukes to do it, and the other equipment as well. Manpower is the only thing we are short on. I would rather spend our defense money on better intel gathering, anti-terrorism techniques. After all China out for total Asian dommination while a remote possibility, isn't as likely as the current terrorist threat we are already facing. Everyone knows that controling Asia will get you 7 bonus armies each turn, but it is a pain to hold on to, and will divert your forces too much.
Personally, I would rather have the Americas. Only three spaces to defend and spread out from there! Not only that, but you can defend the three spaces on the other continents and take away theior bonuses too. The only other really nice continent is Australia.
You guys don't even know how to play Risk but you want to tell Donald Rumsfeld how to run the Department of Defense!?!?!?
I like Europe the most, but Australia is a must have when it comes down to making a defensive stand. The only problem with Australia is that in order to branch out to anywhere but Asia you armies will have to be in a long line. That could make you vulnerable as well.
I agree but Asia is a bad spot to start from. The quicker you can own a continent and get the bonus armies the better. The exception is Asia. Owning Asia is to huge of an undertaking, and too much of a pain to defend.
Oh give me a break. ANOTHER link from commondreams.org? That site has already been proven on this bbs to have zero credibility. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
all the article said was that bush wants to start a new class of nuclear weapons? because i'm sure you read it. that should be common knowledge. there are many articles on this. sorry you can stick your head back in the sand now.
