|
22 October, 2003 |
|
Washington, DC -
An influential US defence panel has recommended dramatic changes to the country's strategic forces that would bolster its non-nuclear strike options while simultaneously moving toward
development of smaller nuclear weapons. The yet-to-be-released Defense Science Board's (DSB's) 'Future Strategic Strike Forces' 2003 summer study, obtained by Jane's Defence Weekly, says the US should develop a range of lower-yield nuclear weapons because the current arsenal "is not adequate to [meet] future national security needs". Therefore, it argues, the arsenal should be made "more relevant to the threat environment" by lowering each bomb's explosive yield, reducing the resulting collateral damage. The thinking, a senior military official explained, is that atomic weapons with a smaller explosive yield would be seen as more credible, thus increasing their deterrence power against potential adversaries. The proposed changes are likely to draw political fire. Opponents fear that any move toward building low-yield atomic arms threatens to reduce the barrier to the weapons' use and undermines efforts to control nuclear proliferation elsewhere around the globe. Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, of the House Armed Services Committee, noted: "We have no military vulnerability articulated that requires us to build a new nuclear capability." Moreover, she said, developing them "is the ultimate slippery slope" toward eventually restarting full-scale nuclear testing that would "create a whole new trip wire to an arms race". The Bush administration has said it intends to make the Nevada Nuclear Test Site ready to begin testing again with as little as nine months' notice. However, administration officials insist they have no plans to conduct any tests at this time. Despite critics' reservations, officials deny trying to work toward an eventual goal of producing so-called miniature nuclear weapons, or mini-nukes. "To the best of my knowledge there has been no discussion of something like a mini-nuke," the senior military official explained. The focus is on lowering the power of the existing arsenal, but not under 5kT, which would denote a mini-nuclear weapon. Still, the study said, "much more needs to be done" beyond initial efforts to modify an existing weapon to dig deeper underground through the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator programme (JDW 27 March 2002). US defence officials want to be able to hold the growing number of deeply buried leadership and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) facilities around the world at risk, which in some cases cannot currently be done with conventional warheads. The new atomic arsenal envisaged would include weapons able to "produce special effects" such as an enhanced electromagnetic pulse and an enhanced neutron bomb, "all with reduced fission yield". However, the study said, such weapons would be based on the existing stockpile or previously tested designs, obviating the need for testing. A veteran US nuclear weapons scientist said the recommendations are technically feasible without new nuclear tests but questioned whether special variants such as an enhanced neutron bomb would able to kill all biological agents in a deeply buried target without dispersing those agents into the atmosphere - the purpose of such a weapon. Weighing up the options However, for all the attention the nuclear portion of the study is sure to generate, several sources say that the report's intent was to create new non-nuclear capabilities in order to reduce Washington's dependence on its atomic arsenal for strategic strike. The report says a vast array of non-nuclear strike options needs to be developed; from conventionally armed long-range ballistic missiles to specialised weapons able to hold deeply buried bunkers at risk in ways existing conventional weapons cannot. Non-nuclear capabilities are also needed to go after "very hard to hit small, mobile and concealed targets at greater distances" than presently possible, said Dennis Blair, a retired US Navy admiral who co-chaired the panel. Yet even some of the non-nuclear proposals could be controversial. Blair noted, for example, that MX Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles converted to carry conventional warheads should be kept operational and deployed at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and Cape Canaveral, Florida. The change would cost $350 million to develop and $600 million to deploy, with an initial operational capability recommended for 2010. Blair gave a public briefing on the recommendations of the report on 14 October but did not mention the report's nuclear weapons section. Blair said that the panel also recommended the development of a new 1,500nm-range submarine-launched ballistic missile with a conventional payload carried on nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines. With a 2,000 lb (907kg) payload and an estimated price tag of $2.5 billion, the missile could later be examined for use on surface ships. Both would entail serious treaty repercussions, but several senior defence officials said those issues could be overcome. The panel also floated ideas to further develop conventional capabilities. This included ways to utilise special operations forces more effectively as well as a number of US Air Force concepts. Some of the latter were: large stealth unmanned aircraft; supersonic/hypersonic missiles; the common aero vehicle; and an arsenal aircraft armed with a high-speed missile. Blair noted, however, that "there was no clear winner" among them and the concepts should be explored further. DSB recommendations for non-nuclear special arms Other strike systems called for include over $500 million worth of special-purpose non-nuclear weapons:
|
|
|
