|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Senators Disagree on Need for Nuclear Weapon Research U.S. senators yesterday debated the merits of U.S. nuclear weapons research as two Democrats introduced a measure to cut funding from several Energy Department efforts (see GSN, Sept. 15). Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced a measure to eliminate requested funds for several planned Energy Department activities, including research into earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, research into low-yield nuclear weapons, efforts to reduce the time needed to prepare for a nuclear test, and the selection of a site to build a plutonium “pit” production facility. A vote on the amendment to the fiscal 2004 energy and water appropriations bill was expected today. The Republican-led U.S. House limited the same programs in its version of the energy bill earlier this year (see GSN, July 17). In its report at the time, the House Appropriations Committee wrote, “It appears to the committee the Department (of Energy) is proposing to rebuild, restart and redo and otherwise exercise every capability that was used over the past 40 years of the Cold War and at the same time prepare for a future with an expanded mission for nuclear weapons” (Nick Anderson, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 16) As documented in the Congressional Record, Feinstein and Kennedy argued that improving the U.S. ability to design, test and build new types of nuclear weapons would set back U.S. and international nuclear nonproliferation efforts. “I deeply believe the combined impact of studies or development of new nuclear weapons, enhancing the posture of our test sites and developing a new plutonium pit facility could well have the result of leading these other nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants to resume or start testing and to seek to enlarge their own nuclear forces — action that would fundamentally alter future nonproliferation efforts and undermine our own security. Instead of increasing it, it will undermine it,” Feinstein said. Increased nuclear proliferation, in turn, would threaten the tremendous conventional military advantage the United States now enjoys, Kennedy said. “There is one modern military force in the world, and it happens to be the United States. We have to keep it that way. Why put at risk that advantage with the proliferation by other countries of small, useful nukes?” Kennedy said. On that point, Feinstein said, “Next year we will spend more on our military than all of the other 191 nations on the planet combined. If we can’t protect ourselves without thinking about nuclear weapons, who can?” Senators Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) opposed the proposed amendment and disagreed that U.S. research would spur international nuclear proliferation. “The idea that any country is going to react by saying, ‘We are going to go do something now and build more bombs because they are getting [the] Nevada [Test Site] ready,’ is an absurdity. It has no logic to it,” Domenici said. Stressing that “there is no money in this bill to build new weapons,” Domenici argued that U.S. nuclear weapon scientists must be free to study existing weapons and possible future designs. “We should not have to have them worrying all the time whether thinking about certain aspects of a nuclear weapon of the future is a violation of the law,” Domenici said. He added that uncertainties about the effects of aging on existing weapons mean that the United States cannot permanently rule out explosive testing. “We should make [the] Nevada [Test Site] modern so if we need it, we use it, not three years after we decide we need a test because we have some idea there is something amiss in some of our weapons which are 35, 40, and 45 years old,” Domenici said. Kyl argued that Cold War-era U.S. nuclear weapons do not provide a “credible deterrent” because no enemy would believe the United States would be willing to kill million of civilians with a large nuclear weapon. “If smaller, more precise weapons could the job just as well, wouldn’t people of good will, who are concerned about unnecessary death, be interested in at least thinking about weapons that would pose a deterrent to an attack but would not kill as many people, would not kill so indiscriminately?” Kyl said (Congressional Record, p.S11435, Sept. 15).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
