Sandy Perle's April 16, 2001 10:18 AM nuclear news list
posting included the following (my comments, in blue, follow)
:
Subject: Russia to press ahead with Iran nuclear
plant
Index:
Russia to press ahead with Iran nuclear
plant
France Moves Chemical Weapons to Nuclear Storage Site, AFP
Says
Small Earth- Penetrating Nuclear Warhead - Lethal
Side-Effects
Bush Energy Group Won't Discuss Deliberations, Wash Post
Says
===========================================
<SNIP>
Scientists: 'Clean' Nuclear Weapon
Isn't; Small Earth- Penetrating
Nuclear Warhead Would Have Lethal
Side-Effects
WASHINGTON, April 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Low-yield
earth-penetrating
nuclear weapons, intended to threaten deep bunkers without
killing
the surrounding population, would release dangerous
fallout,
according to an analysis by the Federation of American
Scientists.
Some nuclear weapons developers have advocated developing and
testing
new small nuclear weapons as a way to destroy deeply buried
bunkers
containing enemy leaders or biological weapons. Delivered by a
bomb
or missile that would strike the ground a high speed and
penetrate
deeply before exploding, the weapon is intended to destroy the
bunker
but leave nearby civilians unharmed because the earth over
the
explosion would contain it.
But the study, performed by Princeton
University physicist Robert
Nelson, finds this to be technologically
impossible. "No earth-
burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into
the earth to contain
an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1
percent of the
Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a
massive crater of
radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region
with
especially intense and deadly fallout," according to the study.
A
1-kiloton explosion, less than one tenth that of the Hiroshima
bomb, would
need to be under 450 feet of earth to be fully contained.
But the U.S.
B61-11 deep-penetrating bomb only penetrates about 20
feet. A tactical
missile might possibly penetrate to 100 feet,
although it would be difficult
for a nuclear warhead to function
after such an impact.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
COMMENT: where does that 1-kiloton figure come from ? ...if I recall correctly, S. Glasstone's seminal book on the effects of nuclear weapons includes references to bomb tests with yields much less than 1-kiloton. Also, a number of weapons formerly in the US tactical arsenal - such as the Davy Crockett jeep-launched A-bomb - had yields well below 1-kiloton (i.e. whatever it took to do the prescribed task... possibly a hundred tons-or-so equivalent). Secondly, like the penetration of armoured vehicles (tanks) by Depleted Uranium (DU) ammunitions, depth-penetration of bombs in earth is undoubtedly facilitated by high-density uranium metal. Thirdly, it is no secret that depth-penetrating bombs actually REQUIRE "such an impact" in order to function -- their "critical assembly" is of the gun-barrel type, except that there is no chemical explosive in the warhead to drive the mechanism - only the extremely rapid deceleration on entry into the ground : in principle, its the simplest type of nuclear weapon imaginable. I would agree however, that no CHEMICAL explosive weapon could probably survive such an impact without detonating closer to the surface... a lot depends on the details.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
If an underground explosion is not contained, it becomes very<><><><><><><><><><><><>
COMMENT: True -- but this does NOT happen if the weapon is designed correctly...
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Thus, use of even a small earth-penetrating
warhead in a populated area
would cause significant civilian
casualties, according to the study.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
COMMENT: Since when are chemical weapons depots built in "populated areas" ?? [ the escaping chemical gas would probably be a worse threat in the latter case..]
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Scientists who built the first atomic bomb founded the Federation
of
American Scientists in 1945. More than half of the current
American
Nobel Laureates today serve on the FAS Board of Sponsors.
<SNIP><><><><><><><><><><><><>
COMMENT: OK -- but if you're against nuclear weapons, why
not simply say so, instead of making up these phoney arguments ? ...the
former is an entirely different, mostly non-technical issue which may be debated
separately. Without going into any details (off-topic on this list),
off-hand I can think of a number of issues that make such debates
non-trivial, including, for instance, the "what if" scenario of some western
nations or their allies - who have destroyed all their stocks of chemical
weapons - being attacked massively by the chemical weapons of countries like
Iraq. Commentators have often stated that chemical weapons are the "poor-man's
nuclear bomb." What choice do countries which have renounced the use of chemical
weapons have, to respond in kind when attacked ? A horrific scenario no doubt,
but would it not be preferable in such circumstances to have the option of
"low-yield earth-penetrating
nuclear weapons, intended to threaten deep
[chemical weapons storage] bunkers without killing the surrounding population" ?
I would personally like to see the FAS geniuses address this question
!
End of rant.
Jaro
Personal opinions only
* frantaj@aecl.ca