U.S. Scientists Seek to Design Terrorist-Proof Nuclear Bomb

U.S. nuclear weapon designers are trying to develop technology to safely self-destruct nuclear warheads if such weapons were acquired by terrorists or any unauthorized user, the Los Angeles Times reported today.

The safety system would be incorporated into a new design of warhead that could be selected by the Energy Department as soon as this week (see GSN, Sept. 26).  The department has ordered two nuclear weapon laboratories to design the Reliable Replacement Warhead, intended to replace existing U.S. warheads as they age.

Officials said last week that they would continue to pursue the new warhead even as they released a report indicating that the plutonium cores of U.S. nuclear weapons are expected to last up to 100 years (see GSN, Nov. 30).

The search for self-destruction technology was ordered by President George W. Bush three years ago in National Security Presidential Directive 28, the Times reported.

The goal is to prevent terrorists from using a weapon in case they can successfully steal one.  The technology would destroy every component in the weapon, including any plutonium or uranium, if anyone tried to tamper with the weapon, according to the Times.

While the methods under consideration remain secret, one possible technique could involve using acids or other chemicals to contaminate the nuclear materials in a weapon, the Times reported.  The process would disable the weapon without any explosion or radiation release.

“It is essential that we make sure our weapons are impossible for terrorists to use,” said Bruce Goodwin, chief of nuclear weapons design at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  The current U.S. stockpile was not designed with the terrorist threat in mind, he said.

“There was no motivation for the Red Army to send in a suicide squad to steal an American weapon,” Goodwin said.  “They had plenty of their own.  There is a tremendous incentive to certain people who don’t have nuclear weapons to terrorize this nation by stealing one.”

Some critics, however, argued that the Energy Department is misplacing its priorities and should focus on protecting U.S. nuclear materials that are not now weaponized.

“The real threat is the uranium and plutonium materials that are spread across the country in totally inappropriate places and inadequate facilities,” said Danielle Brian, head of the Project on Government Oversight.  “So, rather than fixing the problem they have, they are trying to fix a problem they don’t have.”

Another critic questioned whether the department’s goal was realistic.

“They make it sound like you could leave a nuclear weapon on the streets of Baghdad and nobody would know what to do with it,” said Philip Coyle, a former deputy director of Livermore laboratory.  “I don’t think that is quite the case.  People can reverse-engineer many things.”

The U.S. military might also have concerns about additional layers of safety controls, said one expert.

“The argument against doing more and more of the use controls is that you lose confidence in the weapon,” said RAND Corp. nuclear expert David Mosher.  That lost confidence could lead to resumed nuclear testing to ensure that all systems worked properly, he said (Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 5).

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.