It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rumsfeld Seeks to Revive Burrowing Nuclear Bomb

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Rumsfeld Seeks to Revive Burrowing Nuclear Bomb
By Walter Pincus
The Washington Post

Tuesday 01 February 2005

Bush budget may fund program that Congress cut.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sent a memo last month to then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham saying next year's budget should include funds to resume study of building an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon designed to destroy hardened underground targets.

An Energy Department official said yesterday that $10.3 million to restart that study is expected to be included in the Bush administration's budget, which is to be released next week.

The study, which had been undertaken at the Los Alamos, Sandia and Livermore national laboratories, was halted late last year after Congress deleted $27.5 million for it from the fiscal 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

The research project was started in 2002 as a three-year effort to see if an existing nuclear warhead could be fitted with a hardened casing allowing it to dig deep into the earth before exploding. The program has been restricted each year by Senate and House members who have argued that even studying the potential for such a new nuclear weapon undermines Washington's attempts to limit other countries from developing their own nuclear arsenals.

Last year, at the insistence of Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water, Congress cut all money for the program. That came as a reaction to a five-year budget projection by the National Nuclear Security Administration, which runs the nuclear program within the Energy Department, that estimated spending almost $500 million to produce the weapon in the budgets for fiscal 2005 to 2009.

FULL STORY


I'm sorry but this is getting rediculous. Now we're doing everything we can to develop nukes that can penetrate the Earth's surface? Hell, now Bush is going to pay for it himself since congress the funding for the program. What makes us so special that we are the only ones that can develop nuclear weapon while we tell the rest of the world they can't?

This is what I totally agree with:

The program has been restricted each year by Senate and House members who have argued that even studying the potential for such a new nuclear weapon undermines Washington's attempts to limit other countries from developing their own nuclear arsenals.


It's quite obvious that if you're not "with us" we shove a nuke up your rear and make sure you die. In other words, there is no more peace talks among those countries in which the U.S. "suspects" are terrorist. It is just pitiful.




posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The hypocrisy is.. well, there are no words to describe it. There is no end to the stranglovian crap this administration wants. Forget about humanity and what's good for life on earth. I think Rumsfeld needs to sit on a warhead and spin.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I don't understand, why is it a bad idea to have nukes that can smash thru secret installations buried inside of mountains?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
why is it a bad idea to have nukes that can smash thru secret installations buried inside of mountains?


Why is it ok for us, and NOT ok for other nations? By their logic, folks with brown skin should never have the ability to defend themselves on that level.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Nygdan
why is it a bad idea to have nukes that can smash thru secret installations buried inside of mountains?


Why is it ok for us, and NOT ok for other nations? By their logic, folks with brown skin should never have the ability to defend themselves on that level.


My thoughts exactly ECK! What makes us so special that we're the only nation that can have nukes when no one else can? Here we are trying to set an example for the rest of the world that nukes are deadly and yet here we are developing them ourselves.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Why is it ok for us, and NOT ok for other nations?

What does that have to do with it being a sensible thing for the US to do?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
Here we are trying to set an example for the rest of the world that nukes are deadly and yet here we are developing them ourselves.


Add to that, we're in contravention of our agreements pertaining to the development of chem/bio weapons.

There are now reports that we've used poison gas against the insurgents in Fallujah. Based on this administration's past lies, I wouldn't doubt it.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Why is it ok for us, and NOT ok for other nations?

What does that have to do with it being a sensible thing for the US to do?


Can't answer the question, can you?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Oh, they're developed already. What Rumsfeld means is "build and deploy." Just get some E-6 hot-working tool steel (metallurgist lingo), make a big massive point on the end of your missile and cap it with some extremely hard ceramic like boron carbide. Then, form your nuclear core in the configuration of, and ignite it as, a classic shaped charge focused downwards. Voila.

War promotors should be careful what they ask for, however.

Peace. Think about it.

Regards to all.

[edit on 2/1/2005 by Noumenon]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
What would be the enviromental effects of that? Wouldn't we sabotage tons of underground water passes with nuclear materials? ----Asking because I'm not a scientist.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
All I can say is what Noumenon was saying. The American plan is to use nukes that are currently sitting around (No need to develope any new ones). I also see the need for having these weapons. having these hardend nukes would be great for busting up Osama (Scrambling the mountain he's in) as well as blowing up the Iranian (or any other rouge nation) nuclear bomb manufacturing facilities. Another thing these nukes I belive are also called low-yield nukes (lower impact). These things aren't going to blow away entire cities and country sides.

I would have no problem if France, Russia or any other responcible long time nuke owning country said that they would like to do the same thing (As long as they used curently developed bombs).



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Can anyone tell me whats the point of developing a weapon you cant use?
Everybody knows what happens when you play with one of these things, im sure no one is stupid enough to actually throw another nuke, only if they want to have mutated grandchildren and all other stuff it brings with it.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Can't answer the question, can you?

'Why are other countries not allowed to have more advanced nuclear weapons?'

Because they're other countries, and the US obviously doesn't have much of an interest in letting them have them. So, reasonably, the US does what it can to stop them from having it.

Oh, and so does the IAEA and everyone thats a part of the NPT.

Hypocritical for the US? Sure, very hypocritical.

Given that, why is it a bad idea for the US to develop a powerful weapon?


DB
Wouldn't we sabotage tons of underground water passes with nuclear materials?

No. Surely, there'd be contamination. I'm not pretending that it wouldn't be dangerous, it is after all a nuclear weapon. However, it is being used to smash thru mountains and reinforced steel bunkers and power plants.

However,

If the US nuked, say, Damascus, would hte reponse be the same from the international community if it nuked, say, a secret weapons plant under a mountain in the frozen waste in NK?

How much of the uproar will be over the use of any nuke, and how much over the destruction of some many people?


only if they want to have mutated grandchildren and all other stuff it brings with it.

I think you are thinking of global thermonuclear war?

Thats just the thing, are the russians going to engage in GTW because the US used a limited yeild nuclear bunker buster in syria, iran, or NK? Will they view it as having sufficiently crossed the threshold into 'nuclear warfare' or will they consider it a conventional resonse, ie one that doesn't warrant a nuclear response on their part?

I tend to think that the russians will not be particularly intersted in that.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Drop a couple od those babies on someones alleged nuke/chem/bio weapons facility and everything gets vapourised.

Evidence? What evidence? Sorry, it all got destroyed, you'll just have to take our word that it was there


And so another arms race intensifies...oh what fun.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I hate cheerful enthusiastic talk of "nukes" as though its a game. Its difficult to beleive anyone would have anything positive to say about them in any context. Where are folks sense of reality? This look like a game? not in my city!





[edit on 062828p://36026 by instar]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Instar, it's all part of the "our special forces are better than their special forces", "our tanks are better than their tanks" or "our nukes are better than.....well..... they don't have nukes...but if they did ours would be better" brigade.

Human life is cheap and inconsequential to some people as long as it's happening far away and not to them or the people they know.
What makes the people developing these weapons any less evil than Saddams alleged bio-weapons people?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Because they're other countries, and the US obviously doesn't have much of an interest in letting them have them. So, reasonably, the US does what it can to stop them from having it.


Oh, I see what you're saying. So the U.S. knows what it's doing. Huh? Our government is not corrupt. Oh, no. We here to set an example by blowing other countries up with nuclear weapons we develop. Hell the only way to stop other coutries from developing nuclear is to blow them up with one of ours. Give me a break!

"Now here this one and all! We're the only country allowed to build nuclear weapons because we know what we're doing and no one else does!"

I've got news for you. What a load of crap! I can't believe what I'm hearing from you people!

Read my lips! Our government is corrupt! Never give a corrupt government anything deadly.




[edit on 1-2-2005 by mrmulder]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
dont take my comment too seiriously but

the reason america russia india china uk france are allowed to have nuclear weapons and no one else is ; because

we are the 6 nations who will protect earth from alien invasion

the other nations will just misuse their nukes anyhow

the big 6 have proved their legitimacy by NOT using the nukes in warfare AFTER it was discovered how horrific they were *after the famous nagisaki and hiroshima*

since nagasaki not a single nuke has been used in warfare
therefore
China Russia UK USA India and France have proven their intelligence

if "everyone" has nukes dont you think thats stupid?

alot of you argue like "america is the only nation with nukes" but thats not true

i stand by UN decision to prevent nuclear development in all nations that do not currently possess it
that is called intelligence

those whom wish for nations like Sudan or N Korea to have nuclear weapons in "all fairness" are begging for WW3
just think about that for a little bit



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
And so another arms race intensifies...oh what fun.

If the US is using nuclear and conventional weapons to seek out and destroy states and facilities involved in creating nuclear weapons, wouldn't that put a freeze on nuclear proliferation?


Read my lips! Our government is corrupt! Never give a corrupt government anything deadly.


It has nothing to do with the government not being corrupt.

Why should the US let anyone else have nukes?
Why shouldn't the US develope thi nuclear bunker buster?

I answered your questions, how about answering mine?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I read so often on this board, particularly in "war on terror" forum, people saying, "nuke em", "lets nuke em", without, apparently, any real consideration for what they say so lightly. I ask you to watch this, even if you have seen it .but this time imagine this is your country, your city, your street, your house! Remember, if your country "nukes" any other, its all on. That means these "nukes" as you so cutely call them are heading for your city! try to remember that while watching and then reconsider before you say "we should nuke em".. Those cities you nuke contain streets like yours, houses like yours, and familys like yours inside minding there own buisness, just like your family would be when you see the flash on your horizon. Please take this seriously, nuclear warfare is NOT a thing to be taken lightly, its NOT a game on your X-box!

www.nv.doe.gov...&pubs/photos&films/0800033/0800033.mpg



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join