Col. Daniel Smith: 'Bombs away! or bomb any way'
Col. Daniel Smith, U.S. Army (Ret.), Foreign Policy In Focus
December 2001: the U.S. Air Force dropped the 15,000-pound "Daisy Cutter" on
the cave complex in Afghanistan known as Toro Bora. At the time, this was
the largest bomb in the U.S. arsenal.
The same month, the Pentagon sent 10 of the more lethal 2,000-pound
thermobaric bombs to U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Thermobaric weapons are
dual action: one explosion disperses a fine mist of under-oxidized fuel into
a confined space such as a room in a building or a cave. A second explosion
ignites the mixture, generating a flash fireball and pressure wave that will
kill any person or animal in the immediate effects zone. Anyone who escapes
these effects most likely will still die as the spreading fireball consumes
all the oxygen in the space.
Those old enough to remember Jimmy Carter's presidency might recall the
so-called "neutron bomb" which was supposed to be an alternative to
"ordinary" nuclear weapons. Unlike a "conventional" nuclear weapon, the
neutron bomb only killed people. It did not destroy things. Thermobarics
come close to the same result, although the pressure wave shock could
collapse some structures and the fireball ignites flammables.
The latest iteration of "kill people--don't destroy things" (or innocent
bystanders) weapon under development is the "focused-lethality munition,"
touted as a super-precision weapon. Perhaps most people remember the first
Gulf War and the video tapes from airplane nose cameras showing a 2,000- or
maybe a 1,000-pound laser-designated bomb going down a building chimney or
through a window. Today's bomb of choice for urban combat support is a
satellite-guided 500-pound bomb, soon to be a 250-pound weapon. These bombs
work--that is, kill--by the tried and true methods of blasting and spraying
shrapnel 360 degrees.
Enter tomorrow's bomb sporting a carbon composite case which, because it
fractures more easily than current metal casings, absorbs less of the blast
(which goes further) but also doesn't distribute shrapnel as far. The
interior of the bomb includes the usual explosives augmented by a metal
powder that, riding the blast wave, is lethal but limited in range by
gravity. The net effect of all these changes is to reduce the lethality
radius, but within that radius to blow away every hard object--including
people (Wall Street Journal).
One hesitates to commend development of weapons with increased lethality
even with the prospect that, when used, casualties among innocent bystanders
are reduced. Yet there is something less onerous in the "focused lethality"
bomb when it is stacked beside another USAF development that will be tested
June 2 at the former Nuclear Weapons Test Site 90 miles north of Las Vegas.
This test will detonate 700 tons (in later reports lowered to just under 600
tons)--that is to say 1,400,000 pounds--of conventional explosives in a hole
36 feet deep to allow scientists to measure ground shock waves, and from
these to estimate damage to various underground or buried facilities
(Washington Post).
The deeper rationale for the ground test is to try to determine if a very
large conventional weapon could be powerful enough to damage deeply-buried
bunkers sufficiently to knock them out of a battle (command and control
headquarters) or destroy possible chemical, biological, or even nuclear
weapons and missiles.
Some skeptics think the test will not be conducted fairly or that the
results will be skewed to "demonstrate" that the only way to be sure buried
targets can be neutralized is by using nuclear weapons. And considering that
the administration is pressing for money to build 125 new nuclear weapons
annually--including new designs--on the specious claim that older bombs
cannot be (or soon will not be) certified reliable, the skeptics may be on
to something.
In the aftermath of the Cold War, the United States was a prominent force in
the drive for a worldwide moratorium on creating and testing new nuclear
weapons that effectively closed the nuclear door. Blocked by Congress from
developing a new earth penetrating nuclear "bunker-buster," the Bush
administration is trying to get inside the nuclear weapons house through the
"reliability" window.
Does anyone else feel a chill?
Dan Smith is a military affairs analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus (online
at www.fpif.org), a retired U.S. Army colonel, and a senior fellow on
military affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
Source: Foreign Policy In Focus
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3269
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
.
|
