In December 2001, the US Air Force (USAF)
dropped the 15,000-pound (6,800-kilogram) "Daisy
Cutter" on the cave complex in Afghanistan known
as Tora Bora. At the time, this was the largest
bomb in the US arsenal.
The same month,
the Pentagon sent 10 of the more lethal
2,000-pound (907kg) thermobaric bombs to US 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 US 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 videotapes
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 (113kg) 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 that, 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, says
the 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 on
June 2 at the former Nuclear Weapons Test Site 145
kilometers north of Las Vegas, Nevada. This test
will detonate 700 tons (in later reports lowered
to just under 600 tons) - that is to say 635,000kg
- of conventional explosives in a hole 11 meters
deep to allow scientists to measure ground shock
waves, and from these to estimate damage to
various underground or buried facilities, says the
Washington Post.
The deeper rationale for
the ground test is to try to determine whether 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 of President
George W Bush 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 in effect 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, a retired US Army colonel, and a senior
fellow on military affairs at the Friends
Committee on National Legislation.
