by Rob Wojtasiewicz
On March 11, 1998, the US Air Force will drop two bombs onto its test-range on the Tanana Flats. These two bombs are exact replicas of a nuclear fission bomb, called the B-61. They are imitation nukes, complete with a non-explosive radioactive payload that some environmentalists believe could leak into the environment. The Air Force claims that the tests are safe and the chance of an environmental disaster is almost nonexistent.

The B-61 is designed to drop from a plane, burrow up to twenty-five feet into the ground, then detonate. It is a new addition to our nuclear arsenal. In building it, the Department of Defense has skirted the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by combining existing technology. The bombs are an upgrade of already-existing devices. The United States has a good stockpile of a non-nuclear version of the burrowing bomb, often referred to as a "Bunker Buster." We also have a healthy stockpile of nuclear devices. Put them together and what you have is a new nuke that isn't a new nuke.

There are three issues at stake in the upcoming tests: First of all, the bombs contain radioactive material. Any time you drop a hundred-fifty pounds of uranium from the sky, people are going to be understandably concerned. In this particular case, the radioactive material is Depleted Uranium, which is what is left over after plutonium is refined from Uranium.

Depleted Uranium, often referred to by its initials DU, is a relatively innocuous substance. It emits low-level alpha radiation, which can't penetrate past human skin. You can handle the stuff without much risk, though it's probably not a very bright idea to be exposed to it for long periods of time. However, DU is an extremely brittle substance, and it can vaporize into very fine particles when it is subject to extreme impact. This dust is extremely toxic if breathed, or if it enters the food chain and gets eaten. The radioactive particles can stay resident in the body for a long time, and can cause many of the problems associated with higher level radiation, such as kidney disease, cancer, and possible birth defects.

Environmental groups are concerned about the possibility of a release of radioactive dust, however the Air Force says there's nothing to worry about. At issue is the casing that surrounds the bomb. The casing is designed to withstand extreme abuse. It is the mainstay of the bomb's special feature. The bomb has to hit and penetrate the ground and NOT immediately detonate. That means that whatever advanced electronics are contained in the device have to remain intact, as well as the nuclear fission pile. Therefore, the casing is built for the job. The Air Force points out that they have already tested twenty four of these bombs, and there hasn't been a single mishap. In a taped interview broadcast on KSUA Radio, Captain Langley of the Eilson Air Force Base public affairs division said that some of the tests were against concrete surfaces and there wasn't any cracking of the casing. Even if the casing were to crack, Langley said, the shock-absorbing characteristics of the device would prevent vaporization of the nuclear material.

Pam Miller, of the Anchorage-based environmental group, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, also spoke in a taped interview on KSUA. She expressed concern that one of the B-61 bombs might land on an unexploded conventional bomb on the Tanana Flats range. If that were to happen, the casing might indeed crack, and if the unexploded bomb was a big enough one, if it was a 2000 pounder for instance, it might very well vaporize the DU payload and disperse it far and wide. Captain Langley says that the area was heavily surveyed, and there is little cause for concern. He did NOT state, however, that the target area was minutely canvassed for unexploded ordinance.

The second aspect of the B-61 tests that's coming to the surface is the military's continued use of DU in general. Depleted uranium is quickly becoming the material of choice in anti-tank rounds. This is because when DU impacts a solid surface, such as an armored tank, at high velocities the resulting friction and pressure cause the material to liquify into a molten state. DU is approximately 40 percent heavier than lead. This much mass, travelling at a speed of mach-2 or so, in molten state, can penetrate a lot of steel. If it hits a fuel tank, or even comes in contact with stray fuel vapors it will ignite the material, disabling the tank. Weapons made from DU are effective and efficient.

Unfortunately, there is a negative side to using DU as an anti-tank round. The process of piercing armored steel pulverizes the radioactive material and disperses it throughout the area. Wind-blown particles readily lodge in lung tissue, exposing the host to a growing, toxic dose of alpha radiation capable of inducing cancer and other deadly illnesses. A single, microscopic particle of DU lodged in the respiratory system is the radiological equivalent of fifty (50) x-rays, and can subject lung tissue to 8,000 times the annual radiation dose permitted by federal regulations for whole-body exposure.

Captain Langley stressed in his interview that the B-61 test is a completely different application of DU from the anti-tank shells. The shells are travelling at a far greater speed than the bombs, and they are designed to directly impact and contact the surface. The bombs are designed not to directly contact anything. Therefore, the process of hitting the ground cannot vaporize the radioactive material in the same way that the shells are vaporized. However, there is another property to DU that could conceivably enter into the picture. It seems that when DU is exposed to high heat, when it is burned in a fire, it oxidizes into ash. A study by a citizen's group in Wisconsin cites an incident that occurred during the Gulf War. The following excerpt is from a report compiled by Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger, a community-based group responding to Wisconsin's military toxics.

...one such fire ripped through a United States ammunition depot and motor pool on July 11, 1991 setting off a chain reaction of explosions at the Blackhorse Base at Doha, about 12 miles west of Kuwait City. American and British military, as well as United Nations forces, had bases near Doha. The incident began with an electrical fire on a combatrack vehicle carrying 155-millimeter howitzer shells. As crew members fought to put out the fire, the vehicle suddenly exploded, pelting soldiers with engine parts, ammunition rounds, phosphorus rounds, and shrapnel. The walls of several warehouses, used as barracks for American and British soldiers were pierced with holes from flying debris. Waves of explosions, which continued for more than four hours, incinerated nearby vehicles and tore the roof off the British headquarters building. Fires broke out all through the compound and began to ignite nearby ammunition dumps. All night long, fires burned and ammunition exploded.

According to newspaper reports, at least fifty Americans and six Britons were wounded. One American soldier suffered serious brain damage when shrapnel shattered his skull; three other soldiers underwent surgery for abdominal wounds. Six British soldiers from the nearby St. George Line Camp were slightly wounded. As many as 660 DU rounds, the equivalent of 7,062 pounds of depleted uranium, burned in the fire and at least four Abrams tanks were destroyed; the accident caused the loss of nearly $40 million worth of vehicles and ammunition, and the loss of several lives during the cleanup operation of scattered munitions.

In the end, the fires were left to burn out by themselves. Within days, EOD (explosive safety) personnel returned to Blackhorse Base to begin identifying and clearing out unexploded ordnance and munitions, followed by G-troop and other soldiers detailed to clean the area. Nearly 3,000 troops were at the Blackhorse Base at the time of the fires. These troops were from the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, including unit G-Troop 2nd, the 1st, 3rd and 4th squadrons, and the Combat Service Support Squadron.

Sadly, the real death toll from this fire is still unknown as among the ashes was depleted uranium. Soldiers returning for cleanup detail, not knowing the risks of DU contamination, were again exposed as they approached burned out M1A1 tanks armored with depleted uranium, carried debris and shrapnel with their bare hands and inhaled the toxic dust from the fires and the explosions. There is significant concern that soldiers stationed at Camp Doha after the fire were exposed to residual depleted uranium. Today, Camp Doha remains an active base...

Has the Air Force taken into account the danger of mishap during the B-61 test? Have they planned for all contingencies, such as hitting a still-live conventional bomb? What will they do if something goes wrong, if there is a fire, or the casing cracks, or something else happens that hasn't cropped up during the last 24 test runs? Captain Langley asserts that "In the unlikely event that something does happen, qualified crews will be standing by to insure there is no contamination."

Realistically, the tests will probably not go awry. The list of possible glitches is short, and in terms of risk factors and probabilities, the B-61 appears to be a pretty safe bet. However there is a third issue at stake in the upcoming test. Why does the United States need to add another nuclear weapon to its arsenal? In a time when the world continues to strive for unification, the U S continues to strive for domination. And while we threaten to bomb Iraq into the stone age on the mere suspicion of possessing a weapon of mass destruction, doesn't it seem hypocritical to be testing such a weapon ourselves?

It is the duty of the military to protect the interests of the United States at home and abroad, but is there a single military scenario in which nuclear warfare could reasonably be utilized? Proponents of nuclear escalation have always made generous use of certain catch-phrases, such as "limited nuclear warfare", and "strong nuclear deterrent." Could there ever really be a "limited" nuclear exchange? And what evidence is there that "deterrence" is anything more than rationalization for attempted world-domination?

In many ways, our nuclear capability has become a millstone around our necks. Our role as world protector is quickly being replaced by an image of world-bully. Each time we throw our weight around we gain another layer of discontent and resentment among a world community that already views us as overbearing and arrogant. Our entire military focus has become geared towards mass destruction. War has become obsolete, and our only means of settling conflict is to threaten to obliterate large numbers of people, or to make uninhabitable large tracts of land.

It is appropriate then, that the B-61 bomb will burrow itself into the ground. That is, after all, the best we can hope for; that we have wasted the millions of dollars we spent on the thing, and will never, ever use it. One of these days we're going to wake up and realize some of the truly great works we could accomplish with those millions. Then and only then, the United States of America will regain her greatness.