|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Official Addresses “Misunderstandings” About U.S. Nuclear Intentions By David Ruppe WASHINGTON ð–Bush administration intentions regarding its controversial nuclear weapons research and development polices have been misunderstood, a senior administration official said in congressional testimony Thursday (See GSN, March 10). The mistaken view is that the administration plans to develop new nuclear weapons – low-yield weapons and more reliable bunker busters, Ambassador Linton Brooks, chief of the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), told a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. Brooks said that is not the case, and said he contributed to the misunderstanding by sending a “poorly written” letter last year urging the national nuclear weapons laboratories to take advantage of a repeal of a 1993 ban on research and development that could lead to developing advanced low-yield nuclear weapons. “My memorandum did not direct the conduct of research aimed at developing new weapons, but it was poorly written and invited misinterpretation and I apologize for the confusion. We intend to use the advanced concept funds to investigate new ideas, but not necessarily new weapons,” he said. Brooks also said that while the administration projected future budgets for possible development of a high-yield weapon called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapon, no decision had been made to develop it and congressional approval would be required first to do so. Brooks’ testimony was warmly received by a leading House critic of those nuclear efforts, Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.). “This is some of the best testimony that I’ve seen, period, but certainly the best from you. And I really appreciate your clarification on your memo,” she said. Low-Yield Controversy Critics argue that repealing the 1993 ban could lead to developing new low-yield weapons for destroying underground bunkers and chemical and biological agents, which would be more likely used in war, require resumed nuclear testing and undermine nonproliferation efforts. The administration sought the removal of the law, known as the Precision Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons Development provision, to eliminate unintended restrictions it created on higher-yield research, Brooks said. “As I stated in that memorandum, the removal of this provision, which was supported by this committee, allows us to explore advanced concepts without an artificial constraint,” he said. Administration officials previously acknowledged, though, the repeal also was sought in part to allow basic research on low-yield weapons (See GSN, Sept. 3, 2003). Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl Kimball said Brooks’ testimony was intentionally ambiguous about the purpose of the repeal. “They’re using a kind of phraseology to take the edge off,” he said. “The repeal … opens up the possibility that these ideas that they’re exploring may become designs. While they may not have any plans to develop and produce, they are in the process of conducting research on new, low-yield nuclear weapons designs,” he said. Brooks’ memo, dated Dec. 5, 2003, shortly after the repeal, said scientists were “free to explore a range of technical options that could strengthen our ability to deter, or respond to new or emerging threats, without any concern that some ideas could violate a vague and arbitrary limitation.” It urged the laboratories to “take advantage of this opportunity to ensure that we close any gaps that may have opened this past decades [sic] in our understanding of the possible military applications of atomic energy.” It prompted a Jan. 22 rebuke from key House Appropriations Committee members David Hobson (R-Ohio) and Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.). “Although we find your actions unhelpful, they are at least instructive in gauging the actual intent of the Advanced Concepts work proposed by the administration; we will view future proposals from the department with this memorandum in mind,” they wrote Brooks. Earth Penetrator Intentions Brooks also testified that “no decisions” had been made by the administration on whether to pursue the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator program, which is studying the feasibility of modifying existing warheads to increase reliability after impacting the earth. A recent Congressional Research Service report said the administration this year forecast budgets for developing the weapon following the study. “We included funds in our out year projections only to preserve the president’s option. No decisions will be made until the study is completed. The law is very clear that beginning developmental engineering requires congressional approval,” Brooks said. He said, though, there is “a clear military utility” for the capability, “which is why the Department of Defense asked us to study it.” Kimball said Brooks’ testimony indicated the administration would like to develop the weapon. “Even though they have not made a formal decision to move ahead … the administration wants to build this weapon, and that comes across pretty clearly. That comes across in the testimony,” he said. Brooks said advanced concepts work also includes a study to examine the feasibility of adapting an existing nuclear warhead to provide a cruise missile capability that would incorporate enhanced safety and use controls, and an assessment of the feasibility of improving warhead reliability without testing. It might also, pending a review, examine the utility of using nuclear weapons to destroy chemical and biological agents, Brooks said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
