"Bunker Busters": Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005 and FY2006 Page: 5 of 23
This report is part of the collection entitled: Congressional Research Service Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CRS-2
underground] facilities may be located."2 The Administration proposes RNEP as a
study of modifications to convert existing B83 nuclear bombs to an earth penetrator
configuration. (Another bomb, the B61, was also under consideration earlier.) While
the Air Force is leading the study, which started in May 2003, NNSA is in charge of
studying modifications of specific warheads.
The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003, P.L. 107-314,
Section 1033, called for a National Academy of Sciences report on effects of nuclear
and conventional earth penetrator weapons (EPWs). The report, released in April
2005, addressed technical issues that have arisen in RNEP debates. It had nine key
conclusions: (1) many high-value buried facilities can be held at risk by nuclear but
not conventional EPWs; (2) penetration to a depth of 3 meters captures most effects
of EPWs on buried targets; deeper penetration puts the weapon at greater risk; (3)
EPWs cannot penetrate deeply enough to contain nuclear weapon effects fully; (4)
casualties from a nuclear weapon burst at shallow depth or on the surface are
essentially the same; (5) detonating a nuclear weapon at shallow depth increases the
energy transmitted to a buried target, permitting a reduction in yield by a factor of 15
to 25; (6) attacks using nuclear EPWs near urban areas could produce thousands to
over a million casualties, or hundreds to several hundred thousand for attacks in rural
areas; (7) a nuclear EPW could reduce civilian casualties in an urban area by a factor
of 2 to 10 compared to a surface-burst weapon with 25 times the yield; (8) a nuclear
weapon would have to detonate within a chamber where chemical or biological
agents were stored to destroy the agents; the same is true of nonnuclear
"thermobaric" bombs, which generate high heat and pressure; and (9) in a nuclear
attack on a chemical weapon facility, nuclear effects would probably kill many more
civilians than would the released chemical agent, while a nuclear attack on a
biological facility could kill similar numbers of civilians from nuclear effects and
released biological agents, depending on weapon yield and amount of agent.3
Nuclear earth penetrator weapons burrow into the ground a few meters before
detonating, greatly increasing their ability to destroy hardened underground targets.
The United States has one type of nuclear earth penetrator, the B61-11 bomb, which
was accepted into the stockpile in September 2001.4 That weapon, though, according
to an article by several scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory, "cannot
survive delivery into certain types of terrain in which such [hardened underground]
facilities may be located."5 The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) is at
present a study, begun in May 2003, of modifications to convert existing B83 nuclear2 Bryan Fearey, Paul White, John St. Ledger, and John Immele, "An Analysis of Reduced
Collateral Damage Nuclear Weapons," Comparative Strategy, Oct./Nov. 2003, p. 312.
3 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. Division on Engineering and
Physical Sciences, Committee on the Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and Other
Weapons, (Washington: National Academies Press, 2005) (prepublication copy), pp. 9-2,
9-3.
4 "B61-11 Enters the Stockpile," Weapons Insider: A Publication of the Nuclear Weapons
Program, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sept./Oct. 2001, p. 2.
5 Bryan Fearey, Paul White, John St. Ledger, and John Immele, "An Analysis of Reduced
Collateral Damage Nuclear Weapons," Comparative Strategy, Oct./Nov. 2003, p. 312.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Medalia, Jonathan. "Bunker Busters": Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005 and FY2006, report, August 2, 2005; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6833/m1/5/?q=%22weapons+systems%22&rotate=0: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.