This Echo is READ ONLY !   NO Un-Authorized Messages Please!
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 75: June 13, 2003

House Debate on Administration's Nuclear Weapons Initiatives

Part 2 of 2

"This [Tauscher] amendment takes all the money from being able to do
that research. One cannot do research without money. The proponents
of this amendment say we can do this with conventional weapons. We
are spending in this bill $279.6 million for conventional weapons in
this area. We take away the only money left, which is $15 million;
and we say to the scientists the carefully crafted amendment that we
did last year in a bipartisan manner on the floor is okay, they are
allowed; but we are not going to give them any money. We are not
going to give them any money. We are going to take the money away.
Cut me a break. Then say that. Say you want to prohibit the
research."

REP. IKE SKELTON (D-MO): " I might say, Mr. Chairman, this is an era
of increased concern about weapons of mass destruction. This
[Tauscher] amendment includes a very prudent approach for enhancing
our Nation's ability to hold at risk deeply buried targets.
Additional investments in conventional research and conventional
development are needed, particularly in the areas of improved
targeting and improved planning. Smart fuses, guidance technology,
that is what this amendment proposes.   Mr. Chairman, I have spoken
with professionals in both our scientific and national security
communities, including B-2 Bomber pilots, and I have learned one
truth: the key to defeating hard deeply buried targets lies more in
accuracy and penetration rather than the inherent explosive
capability. That is why I think it is prudent to adopt this
amendment, continue research on the conventional as opposed to the
nuclear."

REP. WILLIAM THORNBERRY (R-TX): "Mr. Chairman, let me begin by
making two points as completely clear as I can:   Number one, it is
not a choice between attacking hardened targets with a conventional
or a nuclear capability. There is nearly $300 million in this bill
to explore conventional capabilities. The question is, should we
explore other options as well? So it is false to say there is a
choice.  Secondly, this bill does not authorize any kind of new
nuclear weapon. That has to be for future Congresses and future
administrations to consider. What this bill does is try to remove
firewalls which prevent us from even exploring whether a different
kind of nuclear weapon can help make us safer. Those who advance
this amendment say we do not even want to think about it, do not
even consider the possibilities.

"It seems to me that if anyone is going to rush to judgment, as the
gentlewoman from California said, it would be those who support this
amendment, that say under no circumstances are we ever going to have
any kind of nuclear deterrent, other than what we had during the
Cold War.     The challenge, Mr. Chairman, is that all we have now
are nuclear weapons that were specifically designed to deal with
Soviet Union targets, and there is a real question about whether a
number of folks in the world would take that kind of nuclear
deterrent seriously, whether we would ever use the kind of weapons
the gentleman from Massachusetts was discussing on a much more
limited, smaller kind of target.

"The point is not, hopefully, that we would ever use them. The
question is people know we would never use these big weapons, and,
therefore, they do not take our credibility seriously. That makes
the world more dangerous.   It is an interesting line of argument to
say that we make the world safer when we tie our hands behind our
back, that the problem is with the United States, and that if we
would just set a good example, the Saddam Husseins and the Kim Jong
Ils and even the Putins would fall right in line, that the United
States is the problem.

REP. NORMAN DICKS (D-WA): " Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment for two reasons. Conventional precision guided munitions
are a better technical solution than the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator for hardened and deeply buried targets, and because the
fallout, both figurative and literal, from the use of nuclear
weapons will make the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator an expensive
showpiece rather than a usable weapon. If we start this program it
is more likely to be simply A BUST, rather than RO-BUST.

"I've had the opportunity to visit this spring with the 509th Bomb
Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base. The 509th operates the 21 B-2
bombers that constitute the most advanced and effective weapons in
the United States military arsenal. These were the pilots who were
assigned the mission in Iraq to attack the very kinds of targets we
are discussing today, hardened and deeply buried targets. I can tell
you that the 509th today can attack, disable, and destroy, these
targets. The 509th employs a penetrating version of the JDAM, as
well as a 5000 lb. bunker buster. These weapons already beat the
ground penetration capability of any nuclear weapon in our arsenal,
and new capabilities will do even more. The B-2 will soon be able to
employ the EGBU-28 bunker buster thanks to support in Congress to
field this capability. And advanced research of binary warhead
weapons and the use of conventional highly energetic materials will
yield even more effective approaches for conventional alternatives.

"Indeed, the Tauscher amendment would add funding to three program
elements of the Air Force and OSD [Office of the Secretary of
Defense] R&D budgets which are working on just these conventional
ground penetration approaches. I believe these conventional
capabilities offer technical solutions not just equal to, but
superior to those offered by even so-called 'low-yield' nuclear
approaches."

###############
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi{at}aip.org    http://www.aip.org/gov
(301) 209-3094
##END##########

 - END OF FILE -
==========

@Message posted automagically by IMTHINGS POST 1.30
---