Ooops. This 'underground' nuclear test in 1970 went badly. A ten-kiloton weapon, buried 900 feet in the ground, accidentally vented radiation 10,000 feet in the air, exposing test site employees and downwind communities to radioactive fallout.
Why is the Bush Administration moving ahead with research into
the development of "mini nukes" -- 5 kiloton and smaller nuclear
missiles -- and high-yield earth-penetrating "Bunker Busters" with
nuclear warheads?
Mini-nukes won't limit radioactive falloutEven
in the controlled environment of the Nevada Test Site, drilling
rigs have to bury 5 kiloton warheads 650 feet in the ground in
order to contain the radioactivity. Current earth penetration
missile technology can reach 20 feet in dry earth from a height of
40,000 feet. And even if an earth penetrating weapon is aimed at a
target that happens to be buried 650 feet in the earth, the chances
of mishap are significant. Anything less than 230 feet of
penetration, and a chimney of radioactivity gets sent skyward,
along with vaporized earth and stone.
Mini-nukes won't limit the spread of nuclear weapons
If there is one lesson from the Cold War that we should have
learned by now, it's that more nukes means more nukes.
As J. Peter Scoblic put it in the Washington Post, "Bush
officials who support new nuclear weapons ought to heed an old
cliché and put themselves in the shoes of their enemies. What would
they recommend to their leader if faced with a United States that
declared a doctrine of preemption, named countries against which it
was prepared to use nuclear weapons and sought to build new nuclear
weapons whose use would be more 'acceptable'? In that situation,
I'd recommend immediately building a nuclear deterrent."
Sub-5 kiloton weapons that the US considers "acceptable" to use
could mean a race for the small warheads among the existing nuclear
powers, with more chances of transfer to new nuclear powers and
"rogue" states. The lowering of the stigma to nuclear weapons use
could have disastrous consequences for the nature of modern
warfare. Bush spelled out the policy of pre-emptive use of nuclear
weapons in the "nuclear posture review" in January 2002 and is now
moving to put that policy in place with development of these new
weapons. Already, the US is preparing to return to nuclear weapons
testing in the Nevada desert, aiming to break the moratorium in
place since 1992.
But the US is hoping that the international community doesn't
take notice of this frightening shift in nuclear weapons policy. At
the 28 April - 8 May meeting of signatories to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in Geneva, the US stated that "we are
not developing new nuclear weapons. The United States has no
current requirement for a new nuclear warhead. The United States
has not lowered the threshold for nuclear weapons use." Delegates
to the NPT meeting must now demand a full explanation as to why
they were misled about the US plans for new nuclear weapons.
Mini-nukes won't discourage the use of nuclear weapons
In one of the most revealing statements about how the
frustration of the weapons labs has driven the development of
mini-nukes, Sandia Lab Director Paul Robinson declared that: "The
U.S. will undoubtedly require a new nuclear weapon ... because it
is realised that the yields of the weapons left over from the Cold
War are too high for addressing the deterrence requirements of a
multi polar, widely proliferated world. Without rectifying that
situation, we would end up being self-deterred." All those missiles
with no place to go.
Here at Greenpeace, we reckon self-deterrence is better than no
deterrence. The self-deterrence that Robinson describes is based on
the recognition that nuclear weapons carry an unacceptable level of
environmental and civilian damage to be used. What the Bush
administration is not accepting is that this is equally true for
mini-nukes.
The use of any nuclear weapon in battle would break a 58 year
taboo. The distinction between a small agent of the apocalypse and
a large one would probably be lost on most people. Let's imagine:
If North Korea fired a nuclear weapon at Alaska, but it was "only a
small one," would the response of the United States be
self-deterred restraint?
ACT NOW: Members of the US senate have the power to block
the implementation of the legislation which allows development of
the new "bunker busters." Let the Democratic Senators who are
running for president against Bush in 2004 know that you want them
to show global leadership and stand up to the Bush administration's
nuclear nightmare:
Write to:
Senator John Kerry
Senator Joseph Lieberman
Senator James Edwards
Senator
Bob Graham
For more information:
How Stuff Works: Bunker Busters.
Federation
of American Scientists
You can
click here to view a short movie about the development of the
B-61, being modified as the "big bunker buster."