You have commented 375 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
US cancels 'mini-nukes' programme
2005-10-26
The US has abandoned controversial plans to develop a nuclear "bunker-buster" warhead, a key Republican senator has said. Sen Pete Domenici said funding for the bombs - part of the Energy Department's 2006 budget - had been dropped. He said research would now focus on conventional penetrating weapons. The warhead had been the focus of intense debate in Congress, with opponents arguing against the US developing new nuclear arms. An administration official, speaking on condition on anonymity, confirmed the move to the Associated Press news agency.

The Senate had approved $4m in funding for the programme, but it was subsequently blocked by the House of Representatives. Sen Domenici, chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the Department of Energy's budget, said the request for funding had been dropped at the request of the department's National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees nuclear weapons programmes.

The proposed nuclear "bunker-busters", also called mini-nukes, would have penetrated bunkers deep underground, including those tunnelled into solid rock. The small nuclear charge would be buried in the explosion, and the fall-out contained. However, critics doubted whether the weapon could go deep enough to contain any fall-out.
Well, this sucks. I guess we'll just have to use the big city-busters instead.
Posted by:Steve

#21  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2005-10-26 23:44  

#20  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Rafael   2005-10-26 21:50  

#19  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler   2005-10-26 20:49  

#18  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Joter Chort5470   2005-10-26 20:11  

#17  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Zenster   2005-10-26 20:02  

#16  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Silentbrick   2005-10-26 19:22  

#15  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Glinese Clomorong9865   2005-10-26 16:36  

#14  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Cromwell Cromwell   2005-10-26 16:35  

#13  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Valentine   2005-10-26 16:25  

#12  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Glinese Clomorong9865   2005-10-26 15:58  

#11  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Cheaderhead   2005-10-26 15:32  

#10  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: lotp   2005-10-26 15:04  

#9  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Phil   2005-10-26 14:47  

#8  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-10-26 13:21  

#7  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Snans Omick8017   2005-10-26 12:16  

#6  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: 3dc   2005-10-26 11:55  

#5  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: C-Low   2005-10-26 11:41  

#4  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Master of Obvious   2005-10-26 10:58  

#3  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Cheaderhead   2005-10-26 10:42  

#2  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Cheaderhead   2005-10-26 10:40  

#1  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Curt Simon   2005-10-26 10:32  

00:00