StratCom says nuclear warheads ready for a trade-in
Published Sunday April 8, 2007
StratCom says nuclear warheads ready for a trade-in
BY TIM ELFRINK
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has steadily reduced its nuclear arsenal, halted nuclear testing and stopped producing nuclear weapons.
But officials at the U.S. Strategic Command, which controls the nation's nuclear weapons from its Offutt Air Force Base headquarters, say it's time to start developing a new generation of warheads.
The estimated 6,000 nuclear warheads still in U.S. submarines, missile silos and aircraft facilities remain reliable and safely stored. But StratCom officials warn that without restarting nuclear testing, scientists aren't certain how long they can continue to give those assurances.
A new warhead, made with less hazardous materials and easier-to-test components, could ensure a reliable stockpile for years - and even lower the total number of nuclear weapons, officials say.
"The goal . . . is the fewest weapons necessary to ensure national security," StratCom's commander, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, recently told Congress. "To move in that direction, we need to move towards a safe, secure, reliable weapon."
Questions have been raised about whether spending billions to develop and produce new warheads would send the wrong signal at a time when the United States is seeking to pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs.
Critics also question the need for such a program. A recent report from the Federation of American Scientists said that nuclear components in current weapons are not in danger of becoming unreliable.
"At this point, there's no serious question about reliability or safety. We've been testing in a variety of ways all sorts of safety measures for 15 years now, and there's a long history of effectively maintaining the weapons we already have," said John Isaacs, senior policy director at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
StratCom officials agree that the weapons are not at immediate risk of becoming unsafe or unreliable.
In the absence of nuclear tests, scientists have developed effective computer programs that regularly evaluate the weapons. Warheads also are regularly disassembled, so parts and nuclear components can be individually tested for reliability.
But like a classic car, the aging warheads - more than 20 years old on average - are full of parts that must be regularly repaired and sometimes replaced.
Numerous parts in each warhead must be maintained - from myriad security devices to the complex web of mechanical and electronic components that trigger the chain reaction at the heart of a nuclear explosion.
Over time, those highly specialized parts have become harder to find and reproduce, officials said.
Also, because warheads are built from rigidly precise plans, scientists can rarely add modern safety or security features.
"Imagine a high-performance car, where all the weight is shaved to the last ounce to get everything you can out of it," said Army Lt. Col. Mark Wittig, StratCom's representative to the team working on the new warhead.
"With that car crammed with a powerful engine and everything else, you're not going to have much room to install an air bag after the fact."
Because the warheads are so difficult to modify, StratCom officials would like to scrap them and replace them with a newly designed model.
The new design would be engineered so that nuclear tests could be avoided. Instead, the warheads would be easily tested with supercomputer simulations and safer to handle. They would contain new security features that could render them useless if they ever fell into the wrong hands.
Despite the improvements, the new warheads would not be new kinds of weapons, officials insist.
Their plan would only redesign and replace warheads - the devices that actually cause a nuclear explosion - not the missiles that carry them.
The newly designed warheads would fit neatly inside the old missiles. They would not produce larger explosions, nor would the missiles fly farther or faster to their targets.
The new warhead "has no different characteristics than the weapons we have today, other than it is safer, more secure and more reliable," Cartwright said.
The new warheads could help StratCom further reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile, officials said.
With Cold War-era weapons, the military must keep many redundant warheads on hand, ready to swap if mainline weapons require time-consuming repairs.
With a more reliable, easier-to-fix arsenal, the need for redundant weapons could be reduced, they say.
"You can either keep all these backup cars around in your garage, or you can find a shop that can get you back on the road in a couple of hours if you break down," said Gene Schroeder, a Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist consulting with StratCom.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has been briefed on the proposal and agreed that the program could improve the "safety, security and reliability of our nuclear weapons . . . (and) allow for reduction in the overall stockpile," said Mike Buttry, Hagel's spokesman.
For now, the new warheads are in a conceptual stage. The National Nuclear Security Administration selected an initial design in March and is working with the Navy on a cost estimate.
The Navy hopes to replace a portion of its submarine-launched missile warheads by 2012. Congress first must approve the plans, and some on Capitol Hill have raised questions.
"What worries me is that the minute you begin to put more sophisticated warheads on the existing fleet, you are essentially creating a new nuclear warhead," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "And it's just a matter of time before other nations start to do the same thing."
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who heard Cartwright discuss the proposal before the Armed Services Committee in March, said he also has reservations.
"The program would actually lead to a substantial reduction in our stockpile and resolve concerns about unreliable and aging warheads. But I am concerned about sending mixed messages on nuclear weapons development to Iran or North Korea," Nelson said.
Some experts question the need for keeping any stockpile of nuclear weapons on hand in the absence of Cold War tensions.
"The maintenance of 6,000 nuclear warheads was insane during the Cold War," said Matthew Bunn, a senior researcher at Harvard University and an expert on nuclear proliferation. "Sixteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's doubly insane, creating far more danger than safety for the United States."
Bunn said keeping more weapons on hand increases the risk of accidents or theft. He said a new warhead program shouldn't be considered until independent analysis shows that such a plan could reduce the stockpile and control costs.
Copyright ©2007 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.
©2007 Omaha World-Herald. All rights reserved.
StratCom says nuclear warheads ready for a trade-in
BY TIM ELFRINK
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has steadily reduced its nuclear arsenal, halted nuclear testing and stopped producing nuclear weapons.
But officials at the U.S. Strategic Command, which controls the nation's nuclear weapons from its Offutt Air Force Base headquarters, say it's time to start developing a new generation of warheads.
The estimated 6,000 nuclear warheads still in U.S. submarines, missile silos and aircraft facilities remain reliable and safely stored. But StratCom officials warn that without restarting nuclear testing, scientists aren't certain how long they can continue to give those assurances.
A new warhead, made with less hazardous materials and easier-to-test components, could ensure a reliable stockpile for years - and even lower the total number of nuclear weapons, officials say.
"The goal . . . is the fewest weapons necessary to ensure national security," StratCom's commander, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, recently told Congress. "To move in that direction, we need to move towards a safe, secure, reliable weapon."
Questions have been raised about whether spending billions to develop and produce new warheads would send the wrong signal at a time when the United States is seeking to pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs.
Critics also question the need for such a program. A recent report from the Federation of American Scientists said that nuclear components in current weapons are not in danger of becoming unreliable.
"At this point, there's no serious question about reliability or safety. We've been testing in a variety of ways all sorts of safety measures for 15 years now, and there's a long history of effectively maintaining the weapons we already have," said John Isaacs, senior policy director at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
StratCom officials agree that the weapons are not at immediate risk of becoming unsafe or unreliable.
In the absence of nuclear tests, scientists have developed effective computer programs that regularly evaluate the weapons. Warheads also are regularly disassembled, so parts and nuclear components can be individually tested for reliability.
But like a classic car, the aging warheads - more than 20 years old on average - are full of parts that must be regularly repaired and sometimes replaced.
Numerous parts in each warhead must be maintained - from myriad security devices to the complex web of mechanical and electronic components that trigger the chain reaction at the heart of a nuclear explosion.
Over time, those highly specialized parts have become harder to find and reproduce, officials said.
Also, because warheads are built from rigidly precise plans, scientists can rarely add modern safety or security features.
"Imagine a high-performance car, where all the weight is shaved to the last ounce to get everything you can out of it," said Army Lt. Col. Mark Wittig, StratCom's representative to the team working on the new warhead.
"With that car crammed with a powerful engine and everything else, you're not going to have much room to install an air bag after the fact."
Because the warheads are so difficult to modify, StratCom officials would like to scrap them and replace them with a newly designed model.
The new design would be engineered so that nuclear tests could be avoided. Instead, the warheads would be easily tested with supercomputer simulations and safer to handle. They would contain new security features that could render them useless if they ever fell into the wrong hands.
Despite the improvements, the new warheads would not be new kinds of weapons, officials insist.
Their plan would only redesign and replace warheads - the devices that actually cause a nuclear explosion - not the missiles that carry them.
The newly designed warheads would fit neatly inside the old missiles. They would not produce larger explosions, nor would the missiles fly farther or faster to their targets.
The new warhead "has no different characteristics than the weapons we have today, other than it is safer, more secure and more reliable," Cartwright said.
The new warheads could help StratCom further reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile, officials said.
With Cold War-era weapons, the military must keep many redundant warheads on hand, ready to swap if mainline weapons require time-consuming repairs.
With a more reliable, easier-to-fix arsenal, the need for redundant weapons could be reduced, they say.
"You can either keep all these backup cars around in your garage, or you can find a shop that can get you back on the road in a couple of hours if you break down," said Gene Schroeder, a Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist consulting with StratCom.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has been briefed on the proposal and agreed that the program could improve the "safety, security and reliability of our nuclear weapons . . . (and) allow for reduction in the overall stockpile," said Mike Buttry, Hagel's spokesman.
For now, the new warheads are in a conceptual stage. The National Nuclear Security Administration selected an initial design in March and is working with the Navy on a cost estimate.
The Navy hopes to replace a portion of its submarine-launched missile warheads by 2012. Congress first must approve the plans, and some on Capitol Hill have raised questions.
"What worries me is that the minute you begin to put more sophisticated warheads on the existing fleet, you are essentially creating a new nuclear warhead," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "And it's just a matter of time before other nations start to do the same thing."
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who heard Cartwright discuss the proposal before the Armed Services Committee in March, said he also has reservations.
"The program would actually lead to a substantial reduction in our stockpile and resolve concerns about unreliable and aging warheads. But I am concerned about sending mixed messages on nuclear weapons development to Iran or North Korea," Nelson said.
Some experts question the need for keeping any stockpile of nuclear weapons on hand in the absence of Cold War tensions.
"The maintenance of 6,000 nuclear warheads was insane during the Cold War," said Matthew Bunn, a senior researcher at Harvard University and an expert on nuclear proliferation. "Sixteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's doubly insane, creating far more danger than safety for the United States."
Bunn said keeping more weapons on hand increases the risk of accidents or theft. He said a new warhead program shouldn't be considered until independent analysis shows that such a plan could reduce the stockpile and control costs.
Copyright ©2007 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.
©2007 Omaha World-Herald. All rights reserved.
posted by Walking Contradiction at 4/09/2007 04:37:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home