lennart
26-10-03, 12:29
Pentagon wants 'mini-nukes' to fight terrorists
By Julian Coman in Washington
(Filed: 26/10/2003)
Influential advisers at the Pentagon are backing the development of a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons - so-called mini-nukes - in a controversial report to be published this autumn.
The document, entitled Future Strategic Strike Force, has been produced by the Defence Science Board, which has a Pentagon brief to "transform the nation's armed forces to meet the demands placed on them by a changing world order
The DSB's findings envisage a revamped nuclear arsenal made up of small-scale missiles whose explosive impact would be easier to control and could be targeted at smaller aggressive states. The most radical part of the report argues for a move away from the Cold War view of nuclear arms as catastrophic weapons of last resort.
The document is believed to have the strong backing of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, who last week called for a "bolder" approach to national security in a leaked Pentagon memo. A month ago the Senate eased restrictions on nuclear tests at the military's Nevada site, where no new test has taken place since 1992.
Privately, Defence Department officials describe it as the logical development of the Pentagon's 2002 nuclear posture review, which urged a renewed role for nuclear weapons in American military strategy.
One former Pentagon official said of the DSB report: "The authors are saying that cumbersome Cold War-style weapons are no longer appropriate in an era when one superpower is dealing with a number of terrorist threats and smaller, hostile states. Enemies of the United States can gamble on them never being used."
America's nuclear capability from the Cold War is described in the report, which has been leaked to a specialist defence magazine, as "not adequate to future national security needs". It proposes steps to make US nuclear weapons "relevant to the threat environment" in the era of the war on terrorism.
Among the weapons programmes proposed is an enhanced neutron bomb, capable of destroying deeply buried biological weapons caches, and "nuclear bunker-busters" that can threaten terrorist cells and hidden weapons of mass destruction. Military officers familiar with the DSB study say that it states that smaller nuclear weapons, causing less collateral damage, would constitute a more "credible" threat to adversaries than traditional atomic missiles.
"Brutally, 'mini-nukes' would be easier to use, and therefore more useful as a deterrent," said the former Pentagon official.
Any resumption of testing or the development of new nuclear weapons in the US would cause consternation among America's allies, particularly in Japan. The mayor of Hiroshima, Tadatoshi Akiba, expressed his concern this month that "the policy of the United States has now shifted towards something that will be used".
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has told senior American diplomats that developing new weapons could encourage other countries to violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
"This is extremely serious," said Arjun Makhijani, the president of the Washington-based Institute of Energy and Environmental Research, which has produced a study of the Bush administration's developing nuclear weapons strategy. "The appeal to deterrence is a smokescreen. The desire is to develop nuclear weapons that can actually be used. The United States is in danger of being at the leading edge of proliferation."
The DSB document is the latest signal that the Bush administration is preparing to modernise its nuclear programme. In September the Senate passed a White House-backed plan to reduce the preparation time required for nuclear testing in Nevada. George Bush Snr had imposed a moratorium in 1992.
At the time of the Senate vote Jon Kyl, a Republican senator, argued that tests were likely to be needed given the nuclear ambitions of countries such as North Korea and Iran. "We've had a self-imposed moratorium on testing," said Mr Kyl. "Has it stopped other countries? No. It shows a failed strategy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/26/wnuke26.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/10/26/ixportal.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=175717
Dit is natuurlijk het ultime voorbeeld van Orwells 'double speak', nucleaire bommen gebruiken tegen terroristen. Nucleaire bommen zijn zelf immers het ultieme terreurwapen. Hierbij zien wij het begin van het hergebruiken van een oud plan ooit gelanceerd door Bertrand Russell: het gebruiken van nucleaire wapens om daarmee de mensheid te onderwerpen. Dit plan zag zijn geboorte bij het afwerpen van nucleaire wapens op de Japanse steden, Hirosjima en Nagasaki. Japan was al verslagen, maar kringen in de VS zagen in het afwerpen van nucleaire wapens een kans om de wereldhegonomie van de VS te vestigen. Militair gezien was het afwerpen van deze wapens niet nodig, zoals blijkt uit het feit dat militaire leiders zoals MacArthur en Eisenhower tegen het gebruik van deze wapens waren. Doordat de Sovjet Unie al snel na de WO2 ook beschikking kreeg over nucleaire wapens werd het plan in de koelkast gezet. Maar zie hier, de post-sovjettijd, Cheney heeft het aloude plan van Bertrand Russell weer uit de koelkast gehaald. Het gebruik van nucleaire wapens als terreurinstrument wordt weer serieus besproken in Washington.
By Julian Coman in Washington
(Filed: 26/10/2003)
Influential advisers at the Pentagon are backing the development of a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons - so-called mini-nukes - in a controversial report to be published this autumn.
The document, entitled Future Strategic Strike Force, has been produced by the Defence Science Board, which has a Pentagon brief to "transform the nation's armed forces to meet the demands placed on them by a changing world order
The DSB's findings envisage a revamped nuclear arsenal made up of small-scale missiles whose explosive impact would be easier to control and could be targeted at smaller aggressive states. The most radical part of the report argues for a move away from the Cold War view of nuclear arms as catastrophic weapons of last resort.
The document is believed to have the strong backing of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, who last week called for a "bolder" approach to national security in a leaked Pentagon memo. A month ago the Senate eased restrictions on nuclear tests at the military's Nevada site, where no new test has taken place since 1992.
Privately, Defence Department officials describe it as the logical development of the Pentagon's 2002 nuclear posture review, which urged a renewed role for nuclear weapons in American military strategy.
One former Pentagon official said of the DSB report: "The authors are saying that cumbersome Cold War-style weapons are no longer appropriate in an era when one superpower is dealing with a number of terrorist threats and smaller, hostile states. Enemies of the United States can gamble on them never being used."
America's nuclear capability from the Cold War is described in the report, which has been leaked to a specialist defence magazine, as "not adequate to future national security needs". It proposes steps to make US nuclear weapons "relevant to the threat environment" in the era of the war on terrorism.
Among the weapons programmes proposed is an enhanced neutron bomb, capable of destroying deeply buried biological weapons caches, and "nuclear bunker-busters" that can threaten terrorist cells and hidden weapons of mass destruction. Military officers familiar with the DSB study say that it states that smaller nuclear weapons, causing less collateral damage, would constitute a more "credible" threat to adversaries than traditional atomic missiles.
"Brutally, 'mini-nukes' would be easier to use, and therefore more useful as a deterrent," said the former Pentagon official.
Any resumption of testing or the development of new nuclear weapons in the US would cause consternation among America's allies, particularly in Japan. The mayor of Hiroshima, Tadatoshi Akiba, expressed his concern this month that "the policy of the United States has now shifted towards something that will be used".
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has told senior American diplomats that developing new weapons could encourage other countries to violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
"This is extremely serious," said Arjun Makhijani, the president of the Washington-based Institute of Energy and Environmental Research, which has produced a study of the Bush administration's developing nuclear weapons strategy. "The appeal to deterrence is a smokescreen. The desire is to develop nuclear weapons that can actually be used. The United States is in danger of being at the leading edge of proliferation."
The DSB document is the latest signal that the Bush administration is preparing to modernise its nuclear programme. In September the Senate passed a White House-backed plan to reduce the preparation time required for nuclear testing in Nevada. George Bush Snr had imposed a moratorium in 1992.
At the time of the Senate vote Jon Kyl, a Republican senator, argued that tests were likely to be needed given the nuclear ambitions of countries such as North Korea and Iran. "We've had a self-imposed moratorium on testing," said Mr Kyl. "Has it stopped other countries? No. It shows a failed strategy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/26/wnuke26.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/10/26/ixportal.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=175717
Dit is natuurlijk het ultime voorbeeld van Orwells 'double speak', nucleaire bommen gebruiken tegen terroristen. Nucleaire bommen zijn zelf immers het ultieme terreurwapen. Hierbij zien wij het begin van het hergebruiken van een oud plan ooit gelanceerd door Bertrand Russell: het gebruiken van nucleaire wapens om daarmee de mensheid te onderwerpen. Dit plan zag zijn geboorte bij het afwerpen van nucleaire wapens op de Japanse steden, Hirosjima en Nagasaki. Japan was al verslagen, maar kringen in de VS zagen in het afwerpen van nucleaire wapens een kans om de wereldhegonomie van de VS te vestigen. Militair gezien was het afwerpen van deze wapens niet nodig, zoals blijkt uit het feit dat militaire leiders zoals MacArthur en Eisenhower tegen het gebruik van deze wapens waren. Doordat de Sovjet Unie al snel na de WO2 ook beschikking kreeg over nucleaire wapens werd het plan in de koelkast gezet. Maar zie hier, de post-sovjettijd, Cheney heeft het aloude plan van Bertrand Russell weer uit de koelkast gehaald. Het gebruik van nucleaire wapens als terreurinstrument wordt weer serieus besproken in Washington.