TruthNews

U.S.: Pentagon Wants To Study Feasibility Of Battlefield "Mini Nukes"

By Kathleen Knox, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he wants to study the feasibility of small, "low-yield" nuclear weapons. The idea is that they may be useful in destroying chemical and biological agents like anthrax. As RFE/RL reports, Rumsfeld is stressing that the administration only wants to research, not develop, these weapons. But what exactly is a "mini nuke," and what are the risks of even pushing for their study?

Prague, 21 May 2003 (RFE/RL) -- The weapons the Pentagon wants to study are so-called "mini nukes" -- nuclear weapons with an explosive force of less than five kilotons of TNT.

At their maximum, that's about one-third of the force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of World War II. Some 45,000 people are believed to have been killed in the initial blast.

The idea is that these "mini nukes" would be more effective than conventional weapons in destroying chemical or biological agents, especially such agents stored or manufactured in hardened underground bunkers.

General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke about the issue at the Pentagon yesterday.

Proponents of low-yield nuclear weapons also say they're needed because America's bigger nuclear weapons are no deterrent against rogue states or terrorist groups. The argument goes that these bigger weapons are capable of causing mass death and destruction, so they are "too terrible to use" against an enemy.

Smaller weapons, such as low-yield nuclear devices, would be less devastating, so an enemy may believe the United States could use them. And that, arguably, makes them more of a deterrent.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday that the government only wants to conduct research and it has no intention of developing these weapons, which were mentioned in the controversial "nuclear posture review" published last year by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.

But critics are already warning of the dangers of a new arms race. "The nuclear genie is a very difficult one to keep in the bottle," says Robert Hewson, the editor of "Jane's Air-Launched Weapons."

Other critics say the Bush administration has its science wrong. An open letter yesterday by prominent weapons scientists says small nukes would actually be more likely to scatter biological or chemical agents than to incinerate them.

If the United States does decide to develop them, experts say Washington would not be violating any treaties. That's because the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty doesn't specifically ban the development of new types of weapons.

Still, Gary Samore, a senior fellow for non-proliferation at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, says such development would arguably violate the spirit of that treaty.

Samore says it would be much wiser for the United States to develop specialized conventional weapons instead.

The U.S. Senate last night voted to lift 10-year-old restrictions on research and development of small nuclear weapons. The House of Representatives is scheduled to consider a compromise that would allow research -- but not development.