In the Agora: Bunker Busters Busted

« Heart to God, Hand to Man | Main | Europe: Postmodern no more? »

November 24, 2004

Bunker Busters Busted

DefenseTech.Org updates with the very welcome news that plans to create a small-yield nuclear weapon that its proponents said would have allowed the U.S. to nuke targets buried underground. The program was killed by a Republican Congressman from Ohio.

I wrote about the bunker buster proposal last year and covered the numerous disadvantages that adding this weapon to the U.S. arsenal. Essentially, the proponents were wrong on the science and probably wrong on the strategy. And in the wake of the intelligence failures of 9/11, Iraq, and now--possibly--Iran, are we going to use nuclear weapons when the intelligence is doubtful and the costs are high?

Well, yes, and I agree with that posture. But the analysis behind the bunker-buster idea never really worked out, for the reasons I outline in the link above.

I should also note James Wolcott's invocation of the concept of 4th Generation Warfare. (Reading Wolcott and finding a reference to 4GW is like reading Econometrica and finding a review of How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb by Alan Greenspan.) 4GW, or "maneuver warfare," is a paradigm of interpreting how contemporary, asymmetrical, non-state-centric warfare has reshaped how conflicts are fought. Wolcott puts it in perspective, and his piece helps make the case for why nuclear weapons--a product of an earlier generation of warfare--simply won't do the job today.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at November 24, 2004 09:10 AM

Comments

I'm not sure that nuclear bunker busters are the best idea ever, but I have to take issue with your IDS article. First, your main source for the article is the editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: a very liberal group that has been made up at time of significant numbers of communists and pacifists. Most oppose any use, design or research into nuclear weapons. These are the people that created the Doomsday Clock. So he's not the most unbiased source for your paper. Second, I take issues with the assumptions Schwartz makes. He bases his numbers off nuclear explosions that occur only 1 m underground. He is quite correct that this would create immense fallout. But why are we using nukes on a target 1 m underground in the first place? Conventional weapons can do that job just fine. I've always envisaged the bb nuke as being much more useful for hitting targets 500 feet or more below ground (such as a salt mine or something similar) where conventional weapons are not nearly as effective. Given the history of underground nuclear testing we have done, I'm not sure why an explosion that deep would significantly raise the amount of radioactivity in an area, particularly with the low yield weapons we are talking about.

Posted by: Matthew at November 28, 2004 06:17 PM | permalink