現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争２４ > 472.html
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争２４ > 472.html
★阿修羅♪
|
|
●「Los Alamos Study Group」（ロスアラモス調査団）という市民団体が
米国政府の小型核爆弾・開発計画の情報をつかんで暴露しました。
●同団体のホームページは下記の通り――
Los Alamos Study Group
http://www.lasg.org/hmpgfrm_b.html
●米国は９・１１事変の直後に核戦略を“軍縮”から“軍拡”にむけて
大胆に転換していますが、その一つの策動が露呈したわけです。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
ニューサイエンティスト誌
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993414
US plans for mini-nuke arsenal revealed
【米国の小型核爆弾軍備計画が暴露された】
13:37 19 February 03
NewScientist.com news service
A leaked Pentagon document has confirmed that the US is considering the introduction of a new breed of smaller nuclear weapons designed for use in conventional warfare. Such a move would mean abandoning global arms treaties.
【米国が通常戦争で用いることができる新型の小型核爆弾の導入を検討していることが、国防総省から漏れだした文書によって判明した。この動向は全世界で守られてきた各種の軍縮条約を無効にしてしまうことになる。】
The document, obtained by the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear weapons watchdog based in the US, describes plans for a gathering of senior military officials and nuclear scientists at the US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska, during the week of 4 August.
【問題の文書は、米国に拠点を置く核兵器監視団体「ロスアラモス調査団」が入手したもので、そこには８月４日に軍部の高官と核兵器研究者をネブラスカ州オマハに召集して一週間にわたって会議を行なう計画が記されていた。】
The meeting would discuss further development, testing and introduction of a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons. These weapons, with a destructive power of less than five kilotons, could be designed to penetrate an underground bunker before detonating. The Hiroshima bomb dropped by the US in 1945 had a yield of about 15 kilotons.
【要約：この新型核爆弾はTNT火薬換算で５キロトン以下の破壊力で、地下要塞に侵入していってから爆発するように設計される可能性が高い。ちなみに1945年にヒロシマに投下した原爆はおよそ15キロトンの破壊力だった。】
The US military believes mini-nukes may provide a stronger deterrent to rogue states. This is because the US would be more willing to use them than standard nuclear weapons, which have yields of hundreds of kilotons.
【要約：この小型核爆弾は従来の核爆弾よりも気軽に使えるので、米軍は「ならずもの国家」への強力な抑止力になると信じている。】
US government officials have confirmed the authenticity of the document, but say that it covers "very long range planning" and "what-if scenarios".
【要約：米国政府はこの文書が本物であることを認めた。】
●Enhanced radiation
Also on the agenda for the August meeting would be enhanced radiation weapons, also known as neutron weapons. These produce a large amount of radiation without a devastating blast and can be used to decimate weapons stockpiles and troops without destroying much infrastructure.
【８月の会議では、放射能を増強した兵器――つまり「中性子爆弾」――についても検討される。】
Patrick Garrett, an analyst with the military think-tank GlobalSecurity.org, says the document is alarming. "It's like looking at the cold war all over again," he told New Scientist.
"The fact that they're actually going to sit down and to talk about reliability issues and what would need to happen for production, testing and guidance, means these people are particularly serious about deploying these things sometime very soon," he says.
Garrett adds that the long-term implications of contaminating a target with radiation may not be well understood. "I don't think these people understand that any use of a nuclear weapon is a bad use," he says.
●Treaty threat
The Los Alamos Study Group also condemns the plans for threatening international non-proliferation agreements. Greg Mello, head of LASG, says: "It is impossible to overstate the challenge these plans pose to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the existing nuclear test moratorium, and US compliance with Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which is binding law in the US."
Recent US interest in the development of smaller, more targeted nuclear weapons is well documented. New Scientist reported in October 2000 that the US Defense Appropriations Bill ordered a study of the feasibility of low-yield nuclear weapons. This overturned a ban on research into the development of battlefield nuclear weapons imposed in 1993.
In November 2002, New Scientist also reported a further $15m in US government funding for research into a nuclear "bunker buster", called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.
【『ニューサイエンティスト』誌は昨年11月に、米国政府が「地下要塞破壊（バンカーバスター）」核爆弾の研究費として1500万ドルの追加予算を認めたことをすでに報じている。】
Will Knight
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●昨年４月の同誌では、米国がミサイル迎撃のために核爆弾を使う計画という
30年まえに一度は放棄された構想をふたたび検討し始めた動向が報じらました。
レールガンやレーザー砲の衛星搭載を検討しているようです。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992162
US reconsiders nuclear defence shield
【米国は“核爆発を使ったミサイル防衛”を再び念頭に置き始めた】
12:10 12 April 02
NewScientist.com news service
American military officials are reconsidering nuclear interceptors for missile defence, an idea the US abandoned 30 years ago.
【米国の軍部は30年まえに放棄していた「ミサイル迎撃に核爆弾を使う」というアイディアの復活を念頭に置いて再検討を始めた。】
A Pentagon spokeswoman said Defense Secretary Rumsfeld asked the Defense Sciences Board to consider nuclear weapons in upcoming study "which includes looking at everything that is technically viable." No decision has been made to develop them.
The power of nuclear explosives means such a weapon would not need to score a direct hit to destroy incoming enemy warheads. But the effects of the blast could also knock out civilian satellites and electric power networks - as well as arms-control treaties.
The US deployed its Safeguard missile defence in the mid 1970s, equipped with nuclear warheads. But it was never tested in space or against live targets. It was officially declared operational on 1 October 1975 and deactivated just four months later.
●Sterilising bioweapons
The present-day US missile-defense system has destroyed dummy warheads in four of six tests by hitting them with high-speed, non-explosive projectiles above the atmosphere. However, critics warn that inexpensive decoys launched with the warhead could fool the interceptor.
A nuclear interceptor would destroy everything as long as it detonated close enough to the target. A nuclear explosion also could sterilise warheads carrying anthrax or other biological weapons.
【要約：ミサイル迎撃用核爆弾は、標的付近で爆発させればあらゆるものを破壊できる。ミサイルの弾頭に生物兵器が積まれていても、それを“殺菌”してしまうことができる。】
But Fred Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists, says the plan to reconsider nuclear interceptors could signal Pentagon concern that the current system will not work. "It shows how much trouble they're having with the fundamental problem of telling decoys from the nuclear weapons," he told New Scientist.
Bioweapons would be tough targets. "It would take considerably more than a megaton" to kill most anthrax spores, says Richard Garwin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
●Intense pulse
High-altitude nuclear blasts also produce intense pulses of electromagnetic radiation, which can induce power surges and damage sensitive electronics. When America detonated a 1.4 megaton bomb 400 km above the Pacific in 1962, it knocked out streets lights and telephone services in Hawaii, 1300 km away.
Critical military satellites are shielded to protect them from such effects, but civilian satellites and power grids are unprotected. Five years ago, a top Pentagon official, George Ullrich, warned Congress that a single high-altitude nuclear blast "could result in serious problems for the entire US civil and commercial infrastructure."
Testing a nuclear interceptor would violate a 1963 treaty that bans tests in space or the atmosphere and would almost certainly provoke wide international criticism.
Jeff Hecht
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●戦略ミサイル防衛計画も、実際に用いられればとんでもない副産物をもたらす可能性があるとのこと。
つまり、迎撃されたミサイルが欧州やカナダや米国中部に落ちてくる可能性があるわけです。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991210
Intercepted missiles could fall on Europe
【米国が迎撃したミサイルは欧州に落下してくる恐れがある】
19:00 29 August 01
Missiles targeted at US cities and intercepted by President Bush's proposed missile defence shield could fall on Europe, Canada or middle America instead, arms researchers warn.
【ブッシュ大統領が提案しているミサイル防衛構想では、米国めざして発射され、迎撃されたミサイルが欧州・カナダ・アメリカ中部に落下する恐れがあると、研究者たちが警告している。】
Bush's missile defence plan includes a system to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) just minutes after launch, while their rocket boosters are still burning. This "boost-phase interception" should be easier than targeting missiles in mid-flight because tracking a flaming rocket is easier than homing in on a relatively cool and easily disguised warhead sailing high above the atmosphere, experts say.
But destroying only the booster could leave the warhead zinging across the sky, says Ted Postol, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Precisely where the warhead would land would depend on when the booster was destroyed during its 4 to 6-minute burn. That would be difficult to control, so the warhead could potentially hit anywhere between the launch site and the target city, Postol says.
This means that a nuclear missile fired at the US from North Korea could explode over Alaska or Canada, while one fired from Iraq might strike Britain or mainland Europe.
"Even if you knew all the details, you couldn't be sure of what would happen in any given engagement," Postol says.
●Booster busting
The US is considering several options for boost-phase interception. One is a powerful airborne laser mounted inside a modified Boeing 747 that the Air Force is developing to intercept shorter-range missiles. The laser's beam could burn a hole in the thin skin of an ICBM's booster, says Geoff Forden, a physicist at MIT. But it cannot destroy an ICBM warhead, which is designed to withstand tremendous heat while re-entering the atmosphere, he says.
To destroy the warhead itself during the boost phase would need a larger and more manoeuvrable interceptor than anything the US is currently developing, Postol says.
It would have to be launched from the ground or the sea, and then specifically target the warhead - perhaps by aiming a stream of shrapnel at it. "There are technologies that overcome this narrowly defined problem," Postol says, "but they look nothing like what the Bush administration is considering."
●Success or failure
Researchers disagree on whether a system that simply caused the warhead to fall short could be judged a success or a failure. If it hit land, the warhead would most likely hit a relatively uninhabited area and kill far fewer people than intended, says veteran physicist Richard Garwin, who helped develop the American H-bomb. That fact should deter nations such as North Korea or Iraq from launching a missile at the US, he says, if they were ever tempted to do so.
But Forden questions this. "The guys who might launch this thing probably won't care enough to say if it doesn't hit New York, I don't want to launch it at all."
The shortfall problem could, however, increase tensions between the US and its allies, says George Lewis, a physicist at MIT. "If you ask how many people are going to be killed, on average, you're clearly better off having the warhead fall short," he says. "But the people who it's going to land on may have a different view."
Adrian Cho
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●かつて放棄された軍拡構想が復活した例として、もうひとつ紹介しておきたいのは、
人工衛星に対ミサイル兵器を装備するという計画です。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991044
US revives armed satellite plan
【米国は武装衛星計画を復活させた】
17:05 18 July 01
The Pentagon is looking again at a program to place satellites bristling with anti-missile weapons into orbit. The program had been abandoned in 1993 after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The plan is part of US efforts to develop multi-layer defences to block ballistic missiles that might be launched by "rogue states." The most advanced technology is the ground-based interceptor tested on Sunday over the Pacific, but military analysts believe it would be more effective to target missiles during their boost phase, when their rockets make them easy targets to spot.
The original project, called Brilliant Pebbles, emerged in 1987, as part of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program. The goal was to launch a fleet of 3000 to 4000 satellites which could spot ballistic missiles as they were launched. The satellites would then fire interceptors to destroy them in the boost phase, before they could deploy their nuclear warheads.
The huge fleet was needed to counter the threat of a massive launch of Soviet missiles, so work stopped when the Cold War ended.
Now the Bush Administration has budgeted $110 million next year for developing concepts for space- and sea-based anti-missile systems to complement the ground-based interceptors already in development.
●Space wars
A spokesman for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization said part of the money would go to re-examine work on Brilliant Pebbles. "It may come to nothing, but we spent almost $5 billion on Brilliant Pebbles from 1987 to 1993," he told New Scientist.
An orbiting anti-missile system would not violate the existing Outer Space Treaty, which applies only to weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons.
"Pebbles is less nonsensical" than other parts of the US anti-missile program, says Bob Sherman, an analyst at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington DC, but it does raise questions about the weaponisation of space.
Next year's budget also will raise spending on development of space-based laser defence against missile attack to $165 million, from about $100 million this year. "There has been no acceleration of the space-based laser program," the BMDO spokesman told New Scientist. The US Air Force's Space Based Laser Project web site says launch of an experimental satellite is scheduled for 2012.
Jeff Hecht
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。