|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Republican Lawmaker Slams Bush Nuclear Plans By David Ruppe WASHINGTON — The Bush administration’s plans for the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal appear suited to fighting the wrong war — the Cold War, a key Republican lawmaker said in a scathing speech yesterday. “If the executive branch and the Congress really believe that a nuclear-armed terrorist group is the threat we are defending against — and I do — then we need to change our priorities to prevent such a devastating attack,” Representative Dave Hobson (R-Ohio) said, addressing an Arms Control Association luncheon. Hobson cited the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the proposed research of a new bunker-buster weapon in his criticism of White House policy, and called for “a real debate” on the issue. The lawmaker led a congressional effort last year that blocked funding requested by the Bush administration for this fiscal year to research the bunker buster, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. Congress also blocked funding for other “Advanced Concepts” nuclear weapons research, for shortening the preparation time to conduct a nuclear test if ordered by the president, and for constructing a new facility to build plutonium pits (see GSN, Nov. 22, 2004). The administration reportedly will ask Congress next week to approve resumed funding for the earth penetrator study for fiscal 2006, which begins Oct. 1 (see GSN, Feb. 1). The program has been forecast by the administration to cost $485 million over the next five years. In a prepared copy of his speech, Hobson said no one at the Defense or Energy departments has “ever articulated to me a specific military requirement for a nuclear earth penetrator.” “The development of new weapons for ill-defined future requirements is not what the nation needs at this time. What is needed, and what is absent to date, is leadership and fresh thinking for the 21st century regarding nuclear security and the future of the U.S. stockpile,” he said, also in the prepared text. Oversized Arsenal AllegedBush administration officials have insisted they are adapting the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal to deal with future threats. For instance, in leaked excerpts from its 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department argued that proliferation of deeply buried, hardened facilities worldwide has increased a need for a more effective penetrator. An existing nuclear bunker buster is inadequate, the review says. Administration officials also have pointed to an agreement with Russia in 2002 to remove from operation all but 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads by 2012 and to actually cut the total arsenal, estimated at about 10,000, nearly in half. While praising that plan, Hobson said the U.S. nuclear arsenal would remain unnecessarily high even with the administration’s planned cuts. The numbers are classified, but independent experts say about 6,000 nuclear warheads would remain in the arsenal (see GSN, Aug. 13, 2004). Maintaining such a sizable arsenal has costs, Hobson said. “We spend over $6.5 billion a year baby-sitting an arsenal of nuclear weapons, including over $700 million a year just for the newest super-computing technology for weapons work, and over $500 million a year developing the world’s biggest laser,” he said. The Energy Department spends, however, “less than $500 million a year helping to secure weapons grade nuclear material overseas to make sure it is not smuggled into our country,” he said. “Why are we still preparing to fight the last war? Should we still worry about massive retaliation and mutual assured destruction, or are there more likely scenarios with devastating unthinkable outcomes?” he said. Hobson said the administration has not done enough to prevent what Bush and Hobson have called the greatest threat the United States: “a nuclear device in the hands of a terrorist enemy.” He said he supported the Bush administration’s major responses to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; creation of the Homeland Security Department; “enormous deficit spending to improve our domestic security”; and reorganization of the intelligence agencies — but, he said those efforts have done little to prevent the greatest threat. “If we really believe a nuclear 9/11 is the most serious thing facing us, then we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface,” he said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
