|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
House Panel Rejects Nuclear Warhead By Jon Fox
The new warheads, of which the first design would only be one of a number of replacement weapons, would be easier to produce and maintain compared to the aging Cold War-era arsenal, officials have argued. Officials have also indicated the new warheads, which the administration hopes to put into production as soon as 2012, could also lead to a reduction in U.S. stockpiles, maintained in part as a hedge against the failure of any one weapons system. In denying funding for engineering and cost plans for the first replacement warhead design, the chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee that oversees the nuclear weapon complex, Representative Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.), sent a message to the administration that it was putting the cart before the horse. Given that there is no defined strategy to address Initiating such a program could have “serious international and domestic consequences,” Visclosky said. He called for a comprehensive nuclear defense strategy as well as a stockpile plan to guide the transformation and downsizing of the Visclosky’s comments join what appears to be a growing chorus of legislators and officials calling for an executive-level articulation of how many nuclear weapons the A recent study on the RRW program by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences noted that it was difficult to assess the merits of the new warhead given the absence of a post-Cold War strategy and definition of future stockpile needs (see GSN, April 25). Earlier this month, Tom D’Agostino, head of weapons programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, added his voice to those calling for a clear definition of In the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill already passed by the full House, lawmakers shaved $20 million off the president’s $88 million request for the program and $25 million from the $30 million requested for RRW-related research within the Navy. That bill also provided for a year-long, bipartisan commission to assess current “This commission is designed to help frame the debate over the future direction of the nuclear weapons program and place it in the context of related strategic consideration,” said Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which drafted the provision. Visclosky’s subcommittee went one step further, eliminating all funding from the appropriations bill. “I would characterize it as a profound issue,” he said after the preliminary spending plan was approved. It still must be approved by the full House. Defining nuclear policy is not an issue unique to the current presidential administration, he said. “I can’t think of many more important issues, and it ought to be a policy that stands the test of time, stands the test of multiple administrations stands the tests of multiple Congresses of both parties being in control.” One factor behind the decision to cut RRW funding, Visclosky said, was recent testimony to the committee from Gen. James Cartwright, head of A second consideration was that current plans to modernize and consolidate the nuclear weapons production complex shoot for a completion date of 2030 but the Reliable Replacement Warhead, the main product of that transformed infrastructure, is slated for 2012 completion. “That’s no plan at all,” he said. The Senate has yet to complete its version of the same bill. The House spending plan also added $878 million, or a 74 percent increase, to the president’s budget request for nuclear nonproliferation programs undertaken by the Energy Department. Noting the delinkage between the U.S. mixed oxide nuclear fuel production facility and a paired project in Russia, lawmakers have decided the so-called MOX project in South Carolina is no longer a nonproliferation program but rather an energy project, granting $168 million in funds for fiscal 2008. The project is intended to dispose of plutonium removed from the Visclosky indicated the program was on thin ice with Congress. “This subcommittee will closely monitor the progress of the MOX facility,” he said. “If mistakes continue to be made, the Department of Energy will find it very difficult to make a successful case for any further support.” The draft bill also reallocates $100 million, provided in 1999 but never spent, to help create a nuclear fuel bank under the oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yesterday the House Foreign Affairs Committee also approved a bill that authorizes $50 million toward the same fuel bank initiative. The bank would guarantee reactor fuel to nations in good standing with the U.N.’s atomic watchdog that do not possess enrichment or reprocessing facilities. The Nuclear Threat Initiative has offered $50 million toward the international fuel bank project pending a $100 million contribution from other sources.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
