By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Defense Department is leaving open the possibility of developing a conventional long-range missile for deployment on submarines, despite stern congressional warnings against fielding anything that might be mistaken for a nuclear weapon during launch (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2007).
Budget documents the Pentagon submitted recently to Capitol Hill show the Navy wants to continue working on technologies that could advance a conventional version of the Trident D-5 missile, a submarine-based weapon that today carries only a nuclear warhead.
Lawmakers last year prohibited the Defense Department from developing the conventional Trident, though, contending that its use could spark a nuclear war. The stage is set this spring for a potentially renewed battle between the two government branches over how to proceed. The issue under debate involves the type of arms the Pentagon should develop for a new military mission called “prompt global strike.” Last year, lawmakers broadly endorsed the emerging mission, in which the U.S. military could hit urgent targets halfway around the globe within 60 minutes of a launch order. However, Congress rejected the Pentagon’s specific concept for an initial prompt global strike weapon: a new version of the Navy’s nuclear-armed Trident D-5 missile that would be modified to carry a conventional warhead. Under Navy plans, the service would deploy 24 of the four-warhead missiles aboard the same Ohio-class submarines that carry look-alike, nuclear-tipped weapons. Lawmakers voiced serious concerns that dual-loading the missiles on submarines introduced so much “ambiguity” that any Trident launch — nuclear or conventional — might trigger a hasty nuclear response from Russia or China. In the fiscal 2008 budget, lawmakers zeroed funds for the Conventional Trident Modification effort. Instead, they created a new, multiservice spending account the Pentagon could use to explore an array of alternative technologies and weapons concepts for prompt global strike. In offering the $100 million spending pot for research and development, Congress issued a caveat: “No funds” from the defense-wide account “are authorized for the [Conventional Trident Modification] program,” lawmakers stated in a House-Senate conference report authorizing the expenditure of defense funds for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, 2007. Lawmakers noted they “remain concerned about prompt global strike concepts that would employ a mixed loading of nuclear and non-nuclear systems and believe that DOD should carefully address these ambiguity concerns.” Yet, budget documents recently submitted to Congress suggest that the Pentagon intends to continue research and development on submarine weapons closely related to Trident. Specifically, the Defense Department is proposing to develop technologies that could be fitted onto the Trident D-5 to make it more accurate as a conventional or nuclear weapon. In one budget document sent to Capitol Hill last month, the Pentagon says it intends to spend $59 million in this fiscal year and $69 million next year to “assess the feasibility of producing … ballistic missiles [launched] from an underwater environment” for conventional prompt global strike. The funds would lay the groundwork for a 2009 flight experiment “using a Life Extension Test Bed (LETB-2) re-entry body [on] a currently planned Trident D-5 missile flight,” states one Navy document. During the test, officials would demonstrate a communications and data link that could prove useful for subsequent experiments, the service says. The LETB-2 was designed to go on the front end of a Trident D-5 missile, and comprises a Mk-4 re-entry body warhead and a tail kit containing a Global Positioning System receiver. The tail kit also includes flaps that would allow the weapon to maneuver precisely to its target. The Lockheed Martin technology was derived from an “Enhanced Effectiveness” modification the company flight-tested on a Trident D-5 in October 2002, according to company and defense sources. The Navy requested funds in fiscal 2003 to demonstrate Enhanced Effectiveness on the D-5. Congress canceled the effort, though, citing concerns about the possibility that giving the Trident re-entry body maneuvering capabilities might encourage nuclear exchanges (see GSN, Aug. 17, 2007). Nonetheless, the Navy was able to perform enough research and development in the Enhanced Effectiveness initiative to generate an initial design for a more-precise Mk-4 re-entry body, one defense official explained last year. The service capitalized on that design work in its nascent plans for the Conventional Trident Modification effort, according to officials. Now — following the conventional Trident’s legislative demise — the Navy is proposing to breathe new life into virtually the same designs under the Life Extension Test Bed moniker. Lockheed Martin first flight-tested that version of its re-entry body design in 2005, officials said. In the run-up to next year’s LETB-2 demonstration, the Pentagon wants to use nearly $60 million from the 2008 multiservice funding account for Navy “test completion and delivery of flight software; assembly and integration of components into LETB-2; fabrication and delivery of heat shield, nose tips and flaps; and, assembly and delivery of power distribution unit and telemetry systems,” according to budget documents. Would this work violate the congressional ban on developing conventional Trident? Congress “made it very clear that they have to be very careful about this bright line,” one congressional aide said last week, referring to a Senate warning last June that the Pentagon must clearly separate “legacy nuclear capabilities” and any future prompt global strike capabilities (see GSN, June 22, 2007). “Why don’t we just get on with something?” the staffer added, noting Capitol Hill remains open to land-, air- or even sea-based alternatives as long as they do not share conventional Trident’s problems with launch ambiguity. However, there is yet more Trident-related work afoot. The Navy also wants to use fiscal 2009 funds to prepare for a second flight experiment in 2011, in which a larger “Medium Lift Re-entry Body” would be demonstrated aboard a test-launch vehicle called STARS. Advance work next year would include “completion of a detailed design [and] 80 percent completion of [re-entry body] software,” the Navy budget documents state. This re-entry body would be too large to fit on the Trident D-5 missile or inside existing missile tubes on nuclear-armed submarines. Defense officials say the new warhead instead would require the Pentagon to develop a new missile to launch it, perhaps deployable on four submarines the Navy recently converted to carry conventional cruise missiles and special operations forces. One such option might be to put this larger re-entry body on an intermediate-range missile, according to defense officials (see GSN, Sept. 18, 2007). The four converted submarines remain technically capable of carrying either nuclear or conventional weapons, though. That could pose new ambiguity problems for the Navy on Capitol Hill, congressional and defense officials said. Navy officials have described the Medium Lift Re-entry Body as a “scale-up” of the Conventional Trident Modification design. That has some defense officials crying foul, noting there would be few technical obstacles to prevent the Navy from scaling the MLRB design back down for use on Trident, once it is fully developed. That possibility, some officials contend, makes the Navy’s proposed MLRB work a violation of the congressional ban on spending funds to fabricate or test a conventional Trident missile. Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright — who initially advocated for the conventional Trident as the nation’s strategic commander — said last fall he wanted to move on to explore alternative concepts for prompt global strike. Now vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Cartwright told Global Security Newswire he saw “signaling … from the Hill, which I don’t necessarily disagree with,” to shelve the conventional Trident and “start to focus the [research and development] on the next generation beyond conventional Trident.” Still, Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, who last year replaced Cartwright as head of U.S. Strategic Command, says submarine-based missiles would remain viable options for prompt global strike, at least for now. Air Force Space Command, which Chilton formerly headed, in 2006 began formally analyzing an array of technological alternatives for prompt global strike on behalf of the entire U.S. military. The review is expected to be complete this summer. “I didn’t have anybody say, ‘No, don’t even consider submarines’ as a starting position” in launching the analysis of alternatives, the general told GSN in a Feb. 29 telephone interview. “And I think submarines can work. We just have to make sure we address the issues and concerns that are of concern to the Hill. [The Pentagon] obviously didn’t adequately or effectively enough do that with regard to a modified [Trident] approach. But the discussions have been very open.” As for spending some of the fiscal 2008 monies on submarine weapon research, “I don’t rule that out at all,” Chilton said. Even before Congress zeroed conventional Trident, Cartwright conceded in meetings on Capitol Hill that it was less than an ideal weapon for prompt global strike. The general was concerned that modifying the existing D-5 design would limit the new weapon’s ability to damage targets conventionally, according to defense officials. Cartwright also came to realize that pursuing a dual-use missile concept would introduce political baggage into the program. However, he said last year, conventional Trident was the only technology far enough along in development that it could be fielded relatively quickly, potentially by fiscal 2010. Just this month, Michael Vickers, the Pentagon’s top civilian overseeing strategic and conventional capabilities, told a Senate panel that conventional Trident “remains our really only near-term option in the next three years.” He noted that longer-term alternatives to be funded under the joint spending account include conventionally armed ground-based missiles, hypersonic weapons and “new re-entry vehicles that could be used on our sea-based platforms.” Appearing at the same March 12 hearing, Navy Strategic Systems Program Director Rear Adm. Stephen Johnson elaborated on his service’s technologies under development. “We think that there are a wide range of opportunities, including scaling up the flechette warhead that was the previous R&D effort that the Navy did,” he told the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee. The flechette, a conventional Trident warhead designed for attacking targets on the Earth’s surface, has “been tested at 5,000 feet per second and a little over 7,000 feet per second,” Johnson said. “We would propose two [new] flight tests: one to do the range-safety [measures] necessary” for either a Navy or Air Force re-entry body, and a second for “further tests on warheads,” he said. Fiscal 2008 defense authorization legislation called on the Pentagon to submit two reports to Congress on its weapons development plans for prompt global strike. One would detail the Defense Department’s research, development and testing plan between 2008 and 2013, and no funds to begin executing the plan may be spent until 10 days after the report is submitted. Lawmakers also directed the Pentagon’s head of acquisition and technology to report on how the agency would allocate its fiscal 2008 prompt global strike funds. The defense buying czar must submit the document before the funds can be spent. Five months into the fiscal year, neither report has arrived on Capitol Hill. The delay could push any potential technology demonstration into fiscal 2010 or beyond, officials told GSN. Absent the reports, it remains unclear if the Navy budget documents submitted last month accurately reflect the Pentagon leadership’s current intentions about proceeding with conventional Trident-related technologies, one congressional aide said last week. Until the reports are in, the Pentagon cannot legally spend funds on prompt global strike. Meanwhile, those responsible for the mission know “very well” the bill language that prevents funds from being expended on conventional Trident technologies, the staffer said. “It’s very clear what we’ve been telling [them].”
Russia plans to close two Siberian nuclear reactors beginning next month, Interfax reported. Shutting down the two reactors has been a major U.S. nonproliferation goal because the facilities produce large quantities of weapon-grade plutonium while they generate heat and power for nearby communities (see GSN, Feb. 4). The ADE-4 reactor would be shut down in April and its sister site, ADE-5, would be closed in June, said Nikolai Sharov, the facilities’ chief power engineer. “The reactors will be stopped in line with Russian-American intergovernmental agreements on stopping the production of weapon-grade plutonium and setting up compensatory facilities,” he said. The United States is helping to fund the construction of coal-fired power plants to replace the energy supplied by the nuclear reactors. The first of these plants is scheduled to come into service before the next Siberian winter arrives, Sharov said (Interfax, March 19).
The United States and Uzbekistan have modified an Uzbek research reactor to use low-enriched uranium in place of highly enriched fuel that could be seized for use in a nuclear weapon, the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration said yesterday (see GSN, April 20, 2006). The reactor at Uzbekistan’s Institute of Nuclear Physics was converted with U.S. funding and guidance under a 2005 U.S.-Russian agreement to modify reactors in other nations to use low-enriched uranium and repatriate weapon-usable uranium to the United States and Russia. The United States plans to assist in modifying 73 additional reactors before 2018 as part of a Bush administration effort to reduce civilian use of highly enriched uranium. Funding for the conversion was provided through the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which has already completed several shipments of highly enriched uranium to Russia from Uzbekistan. “This successful reactor conversion is another example of the international community working cooperatively to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism,” said NNSA nuclear nonproliferation chief William Tobey in a press release. “Reducing the use of highly enriched uranium for civilian purposes and continuing to work closely with our international partners remain a strong focus of our commitment to advance our nonproliferation and international security goals,” he added (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration release, March 19).
The Iranian electorate gave President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a broad mandate to maintain his hard-line stance on the nation’s nuclear program last Friday by supporting parliamentary candidates likely to support that policy, Bloomberg reported (see GSN, March 19). Roughly 70 percent of voters supported strong Islamists who have backed Ahmadinejad in his standoff with Western nations over Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which could be used to produce a nuclear weapon ingredient. Iran insists the program is intended only for nuclear power production. A faction of political moderates opposing Ahmadinejad won less than one-fourth of the vote after Iran’s ruling clerics banned most of its candidates from running. “The nuclear rhetoric could get worse now,” said Meir Javedanfar, co-author of The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran. “The election victory may bring tougher U.N. sanctions, making Iran’s economic situation all the more difficult” (Bentley/Nasseri, Bloomberg, March 17). Meanwhile, a Western intelligence official revealed documents to Jane’s International Defense Review indicating that Iran has developed detonation technology it could use in building a nuclear weapon, the magazine reported in its most recent issue. The documents, which were verified by several independent experts in Vienna, assert that a branch of the Iranian Defense Ministry has successfully tested multipoint initiation technology on a hemispherical implosion detonator. Related developments took place within the Iranian Atomic Energy Authority around the same time. The detonation technology could be hidden within programs to develop conventional shaped-charge weapons, but Iran judged it to be “good enough” to use in a nuclear weapon following tests in 2000, the documents indicate. Iran has made significant progress in developing non-nuclear technologies it could use to militarize its nuclear capabilities, the documents show. They also challenge a U.S. intelligence assessment’s conclusion that Iran suspended its development of nuclear weapons technologies in 2003 (Mark Harrington, Jane’s International Defense Review, April 2008). In Oman, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said yesterday that it remains uncertain whether Iran has resumed nuclear weapons work despite the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate’s determination that it had halted development five years ago, the Associated Press reported. “What it (the NIE) says is that they have definitely had in the past a program to develop a nuclear warhead; that it would appear that they stopped that weaponization process in 2003. We don’t know whether or not they’ve restarted,” Cheney said. “What we do know is that they had then, and have now, a process by which they’re trying to enrich uranium, which is the key obstacle they’ve got to overcome in order to have a nuclear weapon,” he said. “They’ve been working at it for years.” Cheney added that he has not adopted a harsher tone toward Iran’s nuclear activities. “I’ve been pretty consistent over time about Iran,” he said. “I don’t think I’ve ratcheted up the rhetoric. I felt strongly for a long time, and a lot of us have, that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons” (Deb Riechmann, Associated Press/Washington Post, March 19). U.S. President George W. Bush on Tuesday reiterated his call for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program while defending Tehran’s right to develop civilian nuclear energy capabilities, Voice of America reported. “I believe in civilian nuclear power. Iran is a sovereign country and they should have it. The problem is we just don’t trust the government because they haven’t been forthcoming about their enrichment of fuels to go into the reactor. Therefore Russia’s offer to provide fuel on a contractual basis, and provide fuel on a consistent basis, would help solve the problem,” Bush said. “The Iranian leaders, in their desire to enrich uranium, have isolated a great country. There’s a way forward. The Iranian leaders know there’s a way forward, and that is to verifiably suspend your enrichment and you can have new relationships with people (countries) in the U.N. Security Council, for example,” Bush said (Voice of America, March 20).
The United States pressed North Korea yesterday to fully describe its nuclear activities as part of a once-promising denuclearization agreement that has slowed considerably in recent months, Kyodo News reported (see GSN, March 18). The agreement calls for Pyongyang to provide complete disclosure of its past and present nuclear programs, but the United States has rejected a 2007 submission as being incomplete. U.S. officials have suspected that North Korea has a uranium enrichment program and has assisted Syrian nuclear ambitions, both topics that the Stalinist state has not acknowledged. “The really problematic element is we don’t have a commitment from the D.P.R.K. to provide a complete and correct declaration,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill told reporters yesterday in Washington. “They would rather have one that misses a few elements — that is rather incomplete.” Hill promised to deliver on U.S. parts of the deal — such as removing North Korea from an official list of terrorist-sponsoring nations — once Pyongyang submits a declaration that is acceptable to the United States. “I certainly would like to see it done — even this month, in March,” he said (Kyodo News, March 19)
NATO jets yesterday intercepted Russian strategic bombers patrolling over the Atlantic Ocean, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, March 11). Two Russian Tu-95 bombers spent 16 hours on patrol and then passed Norway on their return home, according to the Russian air force. The aircraft did not enter restricted space. “During the flight, the Russian bombers were accompanied by NATO’s F-16 and Tornado fighters,” said Col. Alexander Drobyshevsky. Russia in August began again conducting strategic bomber patrol flights over the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans. More than 70 flights have been conducted to date, often attracting NATO fighter jets. Russia issues alerts before each patrol, which are not intended as a threat to other nations, Drobyshevsky said. The flights have been seen as a Russian effort to reassert its military strength (RIA Novosti, March 19).
The House and Senate Armed Services committees have nominated members for a bipartisan commission set to review the roles of nonproliferation programs, missile defenses and nuclear weapons in the U.S. strategic posture, the House panel announced yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 22). “Our committee worked together in a bipartisan way to authorize this commission because we believe it will help promote a bipartisan consensus on strategic weapons issues, including nuclear weapons policy,” said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) in a press release. Each congressional committee designated six people for the commission. The House panel nominated Harry Cartland, former Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory physicist; John Foster, director emeritus of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Lee Hamilton, former U.S. lawmaker and Sept. 11 commission vice chairman; Keith Payne, chief executive officer and president of the National Institute for Public Policy; William Perry, former U.S. defense secretary; and Ellen Williams, a professor at the University of Maryland. Meanwhile, the Senate Armed Services Committee nominated John Glenn, former U.S. senator and NASA astronaut; Morton Halperin, former deputy assistant defense secretary; Fred Ikle, former director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; James Schlesinger, former head of the U.S. Energy and Defense departments; Bruce Tarter, former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; and former CIA Director James Woolsey. Perry and Schlesinger would lead the commission as, respectively, chairman and vice chairman. The panel is expected to deliver recommendations to U.S. President George W. Bush by Dec. 1 (U.S. House Armed Services Committee release, March 19).
The U.S. State Department said Friday it had appointed Ambassador Jackie Wolcott as special nuclear nonproliferation envoy, giving her an important role in implementing a U.S.-Russian agreement reached last year to combat the spread of nuclear weapons (see GSN, July 3, 2007). “Ambassador Wolcott will work with counterparts in other countries to develop international cooperation to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime,” the State Department said in a statement (U.S. release, March 14). The pact, initialed in July by U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, identified 10 measures the two nations could take to facilitate international nuclear energy development while reducing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. It called on the sides to secure funding for the effort while coordinating efforts to provide nuclear power plant fuel to outside countries and handle spent nuclear fuel. Wolcott met in Vienna last week with a Russian envoy, and the two are planning additional talks in April, Reuters reported. “We will be working to see how we can make this a practical and concrete project,” Wolcott said. “My job is to take it to the next step where we are dealing with (nuclear fuel) supplier states and recipient countries,” she said. In the past, Wolcott served as the U.S. alternate envoy to the United Nations headquarters in New York and as permanent representative to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in Geneva (Sue Pleming, Reuters, March 14).
| 
Back to top
