"Bunker Busters": Sources of Confusion in the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Debate

Abstract

The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), often called a "bunker buster," is at present the subject of a cost and feasibility study to determine if either of two nuclear bombs, the B61 and the B83, could be modified, mainly by adding a heavy, pointed case, so as to be able to penetrate perhaps 10 meters into earth or rock. This penetration would increase the weapon's ability, by a factor of 20 to 50, to destroy hardened and deeply buried facilities. The Department of Defense has expressed concern that potential U.S. adversaries are using such facilities because the 1991 and 2003 wars in Iraq demonstrated that U.S. precision conventional weapons can readily destroy facilities that are above the surface or buried at shallow depth. If the study shows RNEP to be feasible and affordable, and if the President and Congress approve, RNEP could move from a study to development and, perhaps, deployment. The RNEP debate has received much attention and spawned much confusion. This report examines sources of confusion in this debate. Part of the difficulty in analyzing this debate is that the RNEP study raises large and complex issues. Should the United States improve its ability to destroy buried targets, or are there offsetting reasons not to? What would be the targets for RNEP, and by what measures should its military effectiveness be judged? How reliable are estimates of collateral damage resulting from RNEP? Protagonists debate whether RNEP will lower the nuclear threshold and make nuclear use more likely. The threshold may be seen as criteria that must be met for the President to order nuclear weapon use. RNEP would arguably not lower this threshold because it would not change these criteria. It could make nuclear use less likely if it deters actions that meet this threshold; if it does not, it could make such use more likely because RNEP, like other nuclear weapons, would expand the circumstances in which these weapons might be used. This report will not be updated.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Sep 22, 2004
Accession Number
ADA478027

Entities

People

  • Jonathan E. Medalia

Organizations

  • Library of Congress

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Biomedical
  • Energy and Power Technologies
  • Human Systems

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Biological Factors
  • Biological Weapons
  • Bombs
  • Bunker Buster Bombs
  • Collateral Damage
  • Department Of Defense
  • Explosives
  • Materials
  • National Security
  • Neurobehavioral Manifestations
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Bombs
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Penetrator Munitions
  • United States
  • Weapons
  • Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Readers

  • Economics
  • Explosive Engineering.
  • Munitions and Ordnance Engineering