Dieser Internet-Auftritt kann nach dem Tod des Webmasters, Peter Strutynski, bis auf Weiteres nicht aktualisiert werden. Er steht jedoch weiterhin als Archiv mit Beiträgen aus den Jahren 1996 – 2015 zur Verfügung.

Niedliche "Mini-Nukes" - USA erwägen den Bau einer kleinen Atombombe / Nuclear Weapons do defeat Hard and Deeply Buried Targets (HDBT) and WMD

Ein brisanter Bericht des US-Verteidigungsministeriums an den amerikanischen Kongress - Stellungnahme von Martin Butcher / An explosive Report to the Congress - Commentary by Martin Butcher

Am 20. Dezember meldeten die hiesigen Zeitungen, was einen Tag vorher im Albuquerque Journal (USA) zu lesen war: Das US-Verteidigungsministerium hat offenbar die Neuentwicklung "kleiner" Atomsprengköpfe ("mini-nukes") empfohlen, die vor allem der Zerstörung unterirdischer Lagerstätten von biologischen und chemischen Waffen dienen sollen. Das jedenfalls geht aus einem Bericht hervor, den das Pentagon auf eine Anfrage des Kongresses erstellte und im Oktober 2001 dem Kongress übergab. Teile dieses Berichts wurden am 18. Dezember (Ortszeit) in "The Albuquerque Journal" und auf der Website von der Organisation "Nuclear Watch of New Mexico" veröffentlicht (www.nukewatch.org).

Darin wird von Experten des Verteidigungsministers Donald Rumsfeld erklärt, dass tief gelegene Lagerstätten von biologischen und chemischen Waffen mit konventionellen Waffen häufig nicht zerstört werden könnten. In verschiedenen Studien sei bereits geprüft worden, ob und wie Atomwaffen so verändert werden können, dass sie gegen unterirdische Ziele eingesetzt werden können. Derartige Sprengköpfe könnten eine Sprengkraft von fünf Kilotonnen haben. Zum Vergleich: Die 1945 auf Hiroshima und Nagasaki abgeworfenen Atombomben hatten eine Sprengkraft von 15 Kilotonnen. Für den Bau einer "Mini-Atombombe" müsste allerdings das 1994 vom amerikanischen Kongress verhängte Verbot für die Neuentwicklung von nuklearen Sprengköpfen aufgehoben werden.

Ein Gremium prüfe bereits die Möglichkeit, kleinere Atomwaffen für die Zerstörung von Bunkern einzusetzen, heißt es in dem Bericht weiter. Das erfolge im Rahmen einer allgemeinen Analyse des Gefährdungspotenzials. Jede Entscheidung über die Fortsetzung der Forschung müsse jedoch von der übergeordneten Atomwaffenpolitik der Regierung abhängen.

Der Leiter der Organisation "Physiker für soziale Verantwortung", Martin Butcher, warf der US-Regierung vor, einen Atomschlag als Option nicht auszuschließen und "alle wesentlichen Vorbereitungen" für die Entwicklung derartiger Waffen bereits eingeleitet zu haben. Den reduzierten Sprengkopf bezeichnete Butcher als den "dreckigsten von allen". Er sei hoch radioaktiv. Das Vorhaben sende das falsche Signal aus und erhöhe das Risiko der Weiterverbreitung von Atomwaffen.

Pst.
Quellen: Martin Butcher, A Summary of Elements Concerning Nuclear Weapons in the Report to Congress on the Defeat of Hard and Deeply Buried Targets, ohne Datum (Okt./Nov. 2001); Frankfurter Rundschau und Stuttgarter Zeitung vom 20. Dezember 2001.


Center for Global Security and Health

A Summary of Elements Concerning Nuclear Weapons in the Report to Congress on the Defeat of Hard and Deeply Buried Targets

(Transmitted to Congress in October 2001)

It was thought that this report would call for conventional bunker-busting weapons options, and that there was no nuclear element in its requirements. This was based on comments made by Franklin Miller, special assistant to the president and senior director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council, who recently told a group from the faith community that there is no current requirement for a mini-nuke, and that the cuts in strategic forces will not lead to new nuclear weapons development. Indeed, the final sentence of the report reads:

"Nuclear Weapon for ADW
DoD has not defined a requirement for a nuclear weapon for WMD Agent Defeat missions. See Section7 within the classified Annex A for further discussion."

However, the document is full of references that show that nuclear weapons are an intrinsic part of defeating hard and deeply buried targets, and chemical and biological agents. If DoD 'has not defined a requirement' for a nuclear weapon for this purpose, it is only because DoD is currently defining such a requirement. This requirement would need a Mission Needs Assessment (MNA) identified by the Air Force and USSTRATCOM in 1994, for a weapon to defeat Hard and Deeply Buried Targets (HDBT) and WMD. The cuts in strategic forces will not lead to new nuclear weapons development, because that is already underway. The report also describes the intrinsic value of lower-yield nuclear weapons.

A classified study calles Project Sand Dune started to address the role of nuclear weapons in HDBT defeat in 1997. The study was complete in the first quarter of 1999. This study was undertaken because ".. the HDBT Defeat AoA [Analysis of Alternatives] had focused on conventional solutions and highlighted an inability to destroy all HDBTs with current or projected weapons.." This study looked at nucear weapons that could fulfill the Air Force and USSTRATCOM Mission Needs Analysis (MNA) from 1994 for a HDBT Defeat Weapon.

The current situation on both HDBT Defeat and WMD Agend Defeat is set out in Section 5 of the paper. On nuclear weapons for HDBT it says:

"There is no current program to design a new or modified HDBT Defeat nuclear weapon. However, DoD and DOE continue to consider and assess nuclear concepts that could address the validated mission needs and CRD [Capstone Requirements Document]. They have formed a joint Nuclear Planning Group to define the appropriate scope and option selection criteria for a possible design feasibility and cost study. Further information is provided in Classified Annex A - Section 3 - Nuclear Weapons."

The paper is even more explicit concerning the role od nuclear weapons in WMD Agent Defeat, they are described as having "a unique ability to destroy both agent containers and CBW agents." Accuracy and penetration are important as, given those characteristics the report says that a lower-yield weapon can be used, with less collateral damage. The report also notes that current weapons are not well adapted for this purpose. Interestingly, seemingly referring to the B61-11, it says that the lower-yield version of this earth-penetrating nuclear weapon has not been certified.

".. it is possible to employ a much lower-yield weapon to achieve the needed neutralization. The ability to use a lower-yield would reduce weapon-produced collateral effects. The current nuclear weapons stockpile, while possessing some limited ground penetration capability and lower yield options (not yet certified), was not developed with this mission in mind."

To fill this gap, Project Sand Dune led to a planning study that is due to report in FY02. As the report says "The overall objective of HDBT and WMD Agent Defeat S&T Programs is to redress shortfalls in current operational capabilities against future threats. Elements include: ... nuclear weapons" and later elaborates "For destruction of more deeply buried facilities, DoD and DOE are studying the sensitivities and synergies of nuclear weapon yield, penetration, accuracy and tactics."

No final decisions have yet been taken. The HDBT Report says "Any development and procurement of advanced nuclear capabilities would be considered in the broad context of nuclear stockpile policy, plans and priorities, as well as future DoD strategic programs." Any such full scale development of a weapon with a yield of less than 5kt would, of course, need to be preceded by the repeal of the Furse-Spratt provisions from the FY94 National Defense Authorization Act of 1993. The lower-yield version of the B61-11 is a complicating factor, if that is the weapon referenced in the HDBT report, as it needs only to be certified, no research and development would be involved.

Final decisions won't taken until after the NPR and the ongoing HDBT nuclear weapon candidate study has been carried out, and both those requierments will have been met in FY02. There is no current requirement for a nuclear weapon, but there is a current mission need and the Air Force, STRATCOM and DOE are working hard to fill it.

Martin Butcher
Director of Security Programs, PSR


Zur "Waffen"-Seite

Zur "Atomwaffen"-Seite

Zurück zur Homepage