| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |
| Guess who proved B61-11 bunker-buster's deterrent value: DefSec Perry, in 1996 vs Libya | |
| 2004-10-03 | |
| Kerry's own party has already proved the deterrent value of the B61-11 bunker-buster, when Libya, threatened by Perry and Clinton with the B61-11, halted its construction of underground nuclear facilities. Source is liberal defense org CDI, which recites the arguments of left-lib critics of the B61-11 but gives away the game in its account of the actual, real-world example of a Dem administration's successful use of this deterrent by brandishing it against Khaddafi. "Proponents claim these weapons could destroy deeply buried facilities used in the production of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and would thereby dissuade people like Saddam Hussein from developing such weapons in the first place. Opponents claim creating such weapons would threaten international law and might accelerate the proliferation of nuclear weapons without giving the United States much added bunker-busting capability. Little noted in this debate is the fact that the United States has been at work on similar weapons since the mid-nineties and already has a bunker-busting nuclear weapon, the B61-11, a nuclear gravity bomb. "The Pentagon began developing the B61-11 in 1993 and deployed it in 1997. Treading lightly around its obligations under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the United States observes but has never ratified, American nuclear scientists billed B61-11 as a spin-off of an existing weapon. By putting an iron casing around the nuclear warhead, the design theoretically allowed the weapon, released from an aircraft, to burrow through earth or concrete to destroy its target - the same mission officials at the Department of Energy envision for weapons currently being studied. "In 1996, the United States even threatened to use the B61-11 against Libya. When American intelligence learned that the Libyans were building a large underground plant to develop chemical weapons, Defense Secretary William Perry stated publicly that the United States would consider its whole range of weapons to stop construction - an implicit reference to nuclear weapons.5 One of Perry's assistants, Harold Smith, departing from the administration's script of calculated ambiguity, later explicitly mentioned to reporters that, since the United States lacked the conventional capability to destroy such targets, the B61-11 would be the "weapon of choice" for this role.6 [SPIN ALERT] Although it is unclear what factors influenced their decision, [END SPIN ALERT] the Libyans eventually halted construction...."
| |
| Posted by:lex |
| #3 Did last night, and with the White House, and Krauthammer Will Ignatius Sullivan et al - thx |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-03 2:49:18 PM |
| #2 Lex -- You may want to share this factoid with Hugh Hewitt, as he is in the thos of a project right now. www.hughhewitt.com |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-10-03 2:33:00 AM |
| #1 Hello, Karl Rove.... This is a repeat of Reagan vs Mondale. We're facing a sworn enemy that's attacked us via proxies repeatedly and that's now an inch away from getting nukes. And the choice is between a true National Security candidate and an arms control dupe. Hawk vs peacenik. Paint the choice in those terms and you've got the undecided vote in the bag. Get cracking. And get a national address, the one on Iran and also Samarrah/Fallujah offensive, on the air ASAP. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-03 12:27:58 AM |