| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Tech | |
| Rumsfeld States Case For Burrowing Weapon | |
| 2005-02-17 | |
| Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday defended plans to resume studying the feasibility of an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead, saying many countries are burying targets underground and "we have no capability, conventional or nuclear" to go after them. Last year, Congress, by a single vote, refused to continue funding what was begun in 2002 as a three-year technical study. The goal is to see whether the nation's nuclear weapons laboratories could come up with a concept for a warhead casing that could carry a nuclear device down through rock or hardened earth, keeping it intact to explode and destroy an underground facility. Opposition to the study came from House and Senate members who saw it as the United States working to create a new nuclear weapon when Washington is attempting to stop other countries, such as Iran and North Korea, from having atomic weapons. At the House Armed Services Committee meeting yesterday, Rumsfeld said what was involved was a feasibility study and not development of a weapon. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that Gen. James E. Cartwright, the new chief of Strategic Command who has to deal with countering underground targets, "certainly thinks there's a need for this study," and that the other Joint Chiefs agreed. "It's not a commitment to go forward with a system," Myers said.
He described the project as "design work" that does not involve nuclear materials. Instead, he said, "it involves understanding the physics of having a projectile hit the earth, and to determine just how deep the device goes and what happens to the internal structure." Bodman said questions include whether the warhead can "retain sufficient structure that a nuclear device that might be inside . . . or a non-nuclear device, be protected until it reaches some depth in the ground." | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #18 Why did the title give me the image of Rummy at a Senate hearing replying to Ted Kennedy? Dig deeper Ted. |
| Posted by: Thraing Whaimp1866 2005-02-17 4:50:48 PM |
| #17 But you still need to know WHERE to send it. Given out recent intel, what makes any of us think we could hit anything worthwhile? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-02-17 12:45:37 PM |
| #16 One of the big problems with the "rods from god" idea (ala Jerry Pournelle) was that the re-entry velocities described and their temperatures obtained resulted in even metals like tungsten becoming plasma and fluidic in nature (going close to mach 30 and hitting temperatures that turn even tungsten into fluid). As I understand it, that's where the ICBM angle came in; a satellite-released rod would be going too fast and might result in the weapon's destruction instead of the target. An ICBM's highest trajectory isn't that far up, which supposedly would make the rod's speed when it came back down a little slower, hopefully enough to do the job. An interesting concept if it can be made to work, as it doesn't involve the nuke bugaboo. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-02-17 10:57:14 AM |
| #15 PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Animals. I'm a member, no worries. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2005-02-17 8:15:41 AM |
| #14 It depends, Jame. If the hole could be presented as preparing a wetland wildlife sanctuary, I imagine Greenpeace would conduct a fundraiser for it. Sierra Club would want to be involved, too ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-02-17 8:00:48 AM |
| #13 BrerRabbit, then you'd have the PETA heads on your ass. |
| Posted by: Glereper Craviter4297 2005-02-17 7:41:50 AM |
| #12 Why would we need burrowing nukes? Just keep spanking the opening in the ground until the guys inside are nothing but radioactive jelly. Think Heinlein with his rocks in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress only with real, dirty nuke instead of big rocks. But that would be bad for the environment. Maybe we should talk Greenpiece's into having a protest around here, so I can work out my aggressions. |
| Posted by: Jame Retief 2005-02-17 7:24:22 AM |
| #11 I say we train a cadre of suicide gophers. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2005-02-17 6:39:24 AM |
| #10 What's the case for burrowing weapons? It's so the bad guys can't dig a hole deep enough to get away. |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-02-17 6:14:55 AM |
| #9 Lol! Say Doom! Lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-17 4:31:22 AM |
| #8 "Unstable? Hell thats the point son." LOL .com check out my URL the penguin has a new statement. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-17 4:24:33 AM |
| #7 Drop cow-licks from the Shuttle. Like a huge shotgun round of rock salt, or flaming rock salt syrup, heh. Cheap, too, at only $7 bucks a pop. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-17 4:18:52 AM |
| #6 I thought kinetic weapons had been debunked a while back. Once you get past the speed of sound the object becomes too unstable. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-17 3:59:57 AM |
| #5 "a 20' tungsten rod placed on top of an ICBM might give the desired effect of destroying a buried target" Allow me to kill that idea at least for now. One of the big problems with the "rods from god" idea (ala Jerry Pournelle) was that the re-entry velocities described and their temperatures obtained resulted in even metals like tungsten becoming plasma and fluidic in nature (going close to mach 30 and hitting temperatures that turn even tungsten into fluid). This basically resulted in lost of aerodynamic properties and instabilities in order to control any projectile accurately. What a couple of studies are looking at currently is whether its feasible to have some kind of tip coated with ceramics along with a superdense core for the penetration. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2005-02-17 3:19:16 AM |
| #4 Sigh. Where, exactly? When, exactly? You pontificate like a Sunday Preacher. You actually have an outline, an actionable plan, and the public utterances for each step? Lay it out, big mouth. Let's see if you just need meds & therapy or if you know anything. You've been on the Jazeera, huh? Right. C'mon. Put up or shut up. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-17 2:21:23 AM |
| #3 Case made. Now use them. |
| Posted by: IToldYouSo 2005-02-17 2:15:11 AM |
| #2 Another alternative might be just to use a "little boy"... without the explosive charge. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2005-02-17 1:20:02 AM |
| #1 In Popular Science's issue last June in an article outlining weapons of the future, space-based kinetic-energy weapons were mentioned. Someone from globalsecurity.org suggested that a 20' tungsten rod placed on top of an ICBM might give the desired effect of destroying a buried target. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-02-17 12:37:51 AM |