| Acronym Institute Home Page | Calendar | UN/CD | NPT/IAEA | UK | US | Space/BMD |
| CTBT | BWC | CWC | WMD Possessors | About Acronym | Links | Glossary |
Back to the Contents of News Review Special Edition
On February 19, the independent Los Alamos Study Group (LASG) released the minutes of a meeting held at the Pentagon on January 10 to discus the development of the US nuclear weapons stockpile. The meeting - attended by senior scientists from the nuclear weapons laboratories and officials from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) - was held to prepare for a secret conference at US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) in Omaha, Nebraska in August to discuss options for pursuing new weapons research, development and deployment options.
The published minutes - confirmed as authentic by US officials - were widely publicised, principally because of their references to the possible development of new, 'low-yield' nuclear weapons - also known as 'mini-nukes', or 'bunker-busters', designed to destroy well-protected underground facilities. The minutes also address the related issue - apparently to be considered in depth at the August conference - of the possible requirement for a future resumption of nuclear testing in refining and certifying any new designs.
The US Energy Department is proposing Congressional repeal of a 9-year ban on research and development on low-yield (less than 5 kilotons) nuclear weapons. The request was contained in a draft version of the Department's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request, submitted to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees at the beginning of March. The draft argues that the 1994 prohibition had exerted a "chilling effect...by impeding the ability of our scientists and engineers to explore the full range of technical options. ... It is prudent national security policy not to foreclose exploration of technical options that could strengthen our ability to deter, or respond to, new or emerging threats." On March 6, Everet Beckner, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs at the NNSA, told the House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: "I do support repealing the legislation. The reason for that is primarily...[that] it's causing us to stop some analyses from occurring, which is a natural extension of work that you would do at higher yields."
The panel's reaction was split along partisan lines. Republican Heather Wilson, a prominent advocate of low-yield nuclear R&D (see separate item in this Review), argued that it was "an illusion to think...we would be safer if we don't let people think about, explore things that we might find frightening, because they would never be able to come back to us with options." Democrat Ellen Tauscher described the ban as "a pillar of arms control for the past decade. I consider it completely irresponsible of us to be asking for this now considering the fact that we are attempting to disarm other people around the world... I think it has great potential to harm what little credibility this administration has left on arms control". Democrat Senator Jack Reed echoed Tauscher's comments, arguing (March 6) that the request can be seen as another step on the "very disturbing path of legitimising the use of nuclear weapons in a world in which we are dramatically concerned with the possibility that Iraq is attempting to obtain nuclear weapons, a world in which the North Koreans are beginning to flaunt their ability to produce nuclear weapons, in which India and Pakistan are on the brink of conflict with nuclear weapons."
As reported in the last issue, the Energy Department is already exploring the option of modifying two existing warheads - the B61 and the B83 - into a new 'bunker-buster' system. Examining this option does not violate the 1994 prohibition. The plan was outlined in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on March 20:
"As the [January 2002] Nuclear Posture Review highlighted, the threats we face today are dramatically different from those we faced a few years ago. To ensure that future American presidents have deterrence options to deal with these threats, we have a modest Advanced Concepts program ($21m) underway. $15 million will be allocated to the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). This program will examine whether or not two existing warheads in the stockpile - the B61 and the B83 - can be sufficiently hardened through case modifications and other work to allow the weapons to survive penetration into various geologies, with high reliability, before detonating."
On February 28, Senator Diane Feinstein wrote to Secretary Abraham seeking clarification on the Department's low-yield R&D policy. Feinstein wrote:
"I am writing to follow up on the comments you made to the Senate Energy Committee this week on the development of so-called 'low-yield' nuclear weapons. At the Energy Committee hearing, I asked you whether Secretary Rumsfeld had been quoted correctly in the Washington Post on February 20, 2003, when he said that the Bush Administration had no plans to develop new low-yield nuclear weapons. You said yes he was quoted correctly, and that the Administration is only studying adaptations of existing weapons. Yet the Nuclear Posture Review...leads me to believe otherwise. That document states that 'new capabilities must be developed to defeat emerging threats. ... Development of these capabilities, to include extensive research and timely fielding of new systems to address these challenges, are imperative...' (emphasis added) Although Secretary Rumsfeld may be narrowly correct when he said to the Washington Post 'I don't believe there is anything currently underway by way of developing new nuclear weapons,' the Nuclear Posture Review states differently. And, as the minutes of the January 10, 2003 Stockpile Stewardship Conference Planning Meeting [see above] indicate, requirements for 'low-yield weapons' were put on the agenda. According to the minutes, in August the Future Arsenal Panel plans to discuss computer modeling for new nuclear devices, and what sort of testing, if any, will be required. There is no question that in the post-9/11 era a full range of policy options for dealing with new and uncertain contingencies should be on the table. But I am concerned about the appearance of the United States seeking to develop nuclear weapons which blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear forces. How can we effectively seek to dissuade others from developing nuclear weapons while we are going forward with the development of new nuclear weapons ourselves?"
Reports: Pentagon plans conference on how to develop, build new kinds of nuclear weapons for 'small strikes' - and how to sell these ideas to Congress, American people, Los Alamos Study Group Press Release, February 14, www.lasg.org; US 'plans new nuclear weapons', BBC News Online, February 19; Senator Feinstein asks Secretary Abraham to describe plans for research and development of 'low-yield' nuclear weapons, Press Release from the Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein, February 28, http://feinstein.senate.gov; Bush administration asks for repeal of ban on mini-nuke research, Global Security Newswire, March 6; Pentagon pursues Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Washington Post, March 7; Pentagon seeks freedom to research new nuclear weapons, Global Security Newswire, March 7; Statement of Spencer Abraham, Secretary, US Department of Energy, Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, March 20, 2003, US Energy Department website, http://www.energy.gov.
© 2002 The Acronym Institute.