While the controversial Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) programme has been awarded $15 million development funding this year, with the same amount likely next year, a new clause attached to the funding calls for the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to investigate what effect any use of the weapon would have. The clause was added by moderates when the Senate and House of Representatives met to finalise the Defense Authorization Act, published last week. The demand comes on top of a requirement that the military assess conventional alternatives (see next week's issue of New Scientist).
The RNEP would be designed to plunge 30 metres or more into the ground before detonating a nuclear warhead. This would make it far more effective against buried targets, say advocates, who claim that it will produce less fallout than airburst nuclear weapons. But critics claim that it is physically impossible for the weapon to bury itself deep enough to contain a nuclear explosion, and that radioactive fallout would contaminate a wide area.
While the NAS has yet to begin work on its RNEP study, it is promising a rigorous report. "The NAS will not be influenced by political pressure from the government or the military," says a spokesman. "We are independent." He added that the report will also examine whether using the weapon against a bunker full of biological or chemical agents could release the agents rather than destroy them. The military believes the high temperature and radiation burst will neutralise such agents.
"The NAS study is certainly a step in the right direction," says Jim Bridgman, director of a pressure group called the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability based in Washington DC. But because a negative assessment is likely to be contested by the Pentagon, he thinks the study is more likely to merely delay rather than halt RNEP's development.
Author: David Hambling
New Scientist issue: 1 March 2003
PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS STORY AND, IF PUBLISHING ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A HYPERLINK TO: http://www.newscientist.com
"These articles are posted on this site to give advance access to other authorised media who may wish to quote extracts as part of fair dealing with this copyrighted material. Full attribution is required, and if publishing online a link to www.newscientist.com is also required. Advance permission is required before any and every reproduction of each article in full - please contact angela.bourton@rbi.co.uk. Please note that all material is copyright of Reed Business Information Limited and we reserve the right to take such action as we consider appropriate to protect such copyright."
EMBARGOED UNTIL WEDNESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2003 14:00 ET US
UK CONTACT - Claire Bowles, New Scientist Press Office, London:
Tel: 44-207-331-2751 or email claire.bowles@rbi.co.uk
US CONTACT - Michelle Soucy, New Scientist Boston Office:
Tel: 617-558-4939 or email michelle.soucy@newscientist.com