WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is renewing a push to research
and develop a new family of lower-yield nuclear weapons, including the
controversial "bunker buster," or Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, that
could be used against the underground weapons labs and leadership
redoubts of the nation's enemies.
Taking a new approach, the administration is insisting that the
nation's existing nuclear weapons stockpile has flaws and is ill-suited
to meet current and future threats. Officials are seeking to build
several prototypes for new nuclear warheads within the next 7 to 10
years.
But opponents, including some Republicans, argue that these weapons'
smaller radioactive yield would make them more likely to be used, and
that their very existence could provoke a new nuclear arms race at a
time when the U.S. is trying to curb nuclear proliferation.
Taking new approach
Last year, opponents in the House blocked funding for new nuclear
weapons research, though the research had been funded in previous
sessions. Trying again with a different set of arguments, the
administration is asserting that the U.S. nuclear stockpile is
perishable, not appropriate for military needs and difficult to protect
against terrorists.
Plans call for spending $22.5 million on developing the bunker buster
through the next two fiscal years, as well as spending $97 million on
lower-yield warhead replacements over the next five years.
Opponents vow to fight this new initiative, with Rep. Edward Markey
(D-Mass.) announcing Friday he had gathered 88 co-sponsors--including
one Republican, Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut--for a measure to strip
bunker buster funding from the administration's budget.
Appearing last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Linton
Brooks, chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said the
existing stockpile was designed principally for the Cold War era of
high-yield, multiwarhead missiles and is "wrong" for current threats.
He told senators there were a number of compelling reasons for bunker
buster research and replacements for the stockpile.
"The stockpile we inherited from the Cold War may not be the right
stockpile militarily," Brooks said. "We have no capability against hard
and deeply buried targets. Our systems are unsuited for some
specialized missions."
He asserted that the administration was not pursuing the development of
new weapons beyond the bunker buster, but warned the nation had to
prepare for the nuclear armament needs of the future.
"Other than to request completing this modest research and development
effort on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, we aren't investigating
any capability changes," Brooks said, adding that the U.S. needs to
maintain the capability to respond to future threats.
Adjusting to threats
Brooks also warned that the security threats to the nation's nuclear
arsenal have changed and that new technologies and safety approaches
could make the weapons stockpile more secure, though he gave few
details.
During the Cold War, he said, the biggest fear was spies stealing
nuclear secrets; now, officials must also worry about a terrorist
suicide team infiltrating a site and detonating a nuclear warhead there.
The U.S. stockpile of several thousand warheads was not built to last,
he said, and must be annually certified as reliable. The U.S. ceased
underground nuclear testing in 1992, so certification now involves
elaborate X-ray examination of warhead structures and nuclear munitions
under explosive stress.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), a member of the Armed Services Committee,
questioned the attempts to downplay the new program, saying it was
clear the administration is bent on having a nuclear bunker buster
weapon no matter what.
"It would appear that the administration is committed to going forward
with this controversial program, not just completing the feasibility
study," Nelson said. "Is [this] an opportunity to have a serious review
and discussion of nuclear weapons and nuclear policy? Or is it just an
excuse to develop a new nuclear weapon and to return to nuclear weapons
testing?"
Markey said, "The development of any new nuclear weapons is a dangerous
and wasteful use of taxpayer money.
"The bunker buster should not be funded, because it damages our
non-proliferation efforts around the world [and] would, if used,
inevitably spread high levels of radiation above ground, potentially
resulting in substantial civilian deaths and injuries and property
damage."
Vulnerability noted
Peter Stockton, chief investigator for the Washington-based Project on
Government Oversight, which has campaigned for improvements in U.S.
nuclear weapons security, said he did not understand Brooks' logic in
saying new warheads could be made more secure. He said the danger is
not so great with nuclear warheads, which have locking devices that
make them extremely difficult to detonate.
"What the terrorists are after is enriched uranium and plutonium,"
Stockton said.
He said his group has cited concerns over the security at the Y-12
nuclear weapons manufacturing plant near Oak Ridge, Tenn., where
substantial quantities of highly enriched uranium are kept.
But supporters of low-yield weapons say they are a logical response to
the tendency of everyone from terrorists to dictators to bury sensitive
facilities, command centers and weaponry deep underground.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a member of the Armed Services Committee,
said new nuclear weapons could offer the U.S. more flexibility than the
old "triad" of land- and sea-based missiles and air-launched nuclear
weapons.
"With regard to the hard and deeply buried targets, I know a number of
our adversaries are proud of their tunneling ability and have worked
hard to place deep in the ground and in mountains and other areas their
strategic capability," he said. "It's the history of warfare that if
someone feels threatened in one capability, they figure out a way to
make it not threatened, to eliminate that threat. And burrowing into
the ground is a way to do this."
