Slashdot Mirror
Nukes: The Next Generation
jonerik writes: "Following up on the weekend's posting on the revision of American nuclear war-fighting plans, the New York Times has this article on the difficulties in building a new generation of nukes. The American nuclear arms industry is much smaller now than it was ten years ago, testing the new, smaller "bunker busters" would be problematic, and no one's certain that a nuclear weapon with a tiny explosive yield that's capable of penetrating yards of reinforced concrete could actually be built."
Are there bunkers in existence that are not vulnerable to the conventional bunker busters? Might those bunkers be in Iraq? I am mighty skeptical that there's a bunker in existence that can't be destroyed by a large precisely targeted conventional bomb. The only exception to this would be a bunker that's extremely deep, but a small nuke would also have trouble with this. Probably nothing that can't be solved with a larger nuke. Funny (not funny haha) how we all thought 5 years ago that since the Russians are our friends we didn't have to worry about nuclear war, and now our President might actually use nukes in an upcoming war.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
We tried to stop him from even getting into office.
I woke up cynical today, so
<CYNICISM>
We obviously didn't try hard enough. The Democrats were wrong to only want recounts in areas that they knew would benefit Gore. The whole state should've been forced to recount, or have a revote. The Supremes are ultimately to blame. But then, how often does the judicial branch get the opportunity to select the next President?
You think Bush isn't going to try riding the "axis of evil" to a second term? He learned from his daddy (and Clinton) that if the polls are down, bomb the Iraqis. Lucky for him, and horribly unlucky for the victims, the actions of the terrorists have given him a veneer of teflon. Criticism can't stick: you're a terrorist or terrorist lover if you criticize the President.
That goes double for our Senators. Don't dare question the billions of dollars that are being pumped into our "just war," simply accept that you don't need to know what the parameters of our War on Terrorism are.
If you pull away the veil of terrorism, what has the President (and his administration) done for the American people? Giant tax cuts to the rich, a pittance for the poor and working class (what did you do with your $300 check?), Dick "Undisclosed Location" Cheney stonewalling the GAO, claiming that we absolutely must drill in ANWR to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (with no mention of reducing our USAGE), backing out of the Kyoto treaty (it's not like Congress would have ratified it anyway!), backing out of the 1972 ABM treaty and developing a missile shield that is never going to work (unless angering the world is the goal).
</CYNICISM>
Now I'm angry, and sad. It looks like the Pentagon wants to be ready to act upon the more unreasonable portion of the report (using nuclear arms in a conventional war). Of course, nobody will listen to the scientists (from the article):
"The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout," Dr. Nelson wrote last year.
Give them an inch and they'll take a foot. Much more than that, you won't have a leg to stand on.
So much for the simulations of nuclear detonations.
Speaking from a completly ignorant position, surely it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to extend the simulation to determine the effects of the detonation on bunkers, subterranean caves etc?
Fast, cheap & reliable. Pick two.