About a month from now, the House Armed Services Committee is scheduled
to complete work on its FY 2005 defense authorization bill. One section
of this bill is certain to raise considerable controversy: that surrounding
the Bush Administration's proposal to continue research on the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), more commonly known as a "bunker
buster." David Hobson (R-OH), chairman of the House subcommittee
responsible for actually funding the program has already signaled his
continuing opposition to this weapon, predicting, "I don't think
you'll see a lot of money put into that effort" when his subcommittee's
appropriations bill is released in May.
Last year's controversy over this weapon has continued into this year,
now heightened by a March report prepared by a national defense specialist
at the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS is a much-respected
component of the Library of Congress, and serves as a research unit
that exclusively handles requests from Members of Congress. CRS reports
are widely-regarded for their impartiality on issues. While this report
is only three pages long, it has been discussed at several House and
Senate hearings. Noting that the Administration has outlined a five-year
projected cost of $484.7 million in its FY 2005 budget request, the
CRS defense specialist states, "The FY 2005 request document
seems to cast serious doubt on the assertions that RNEP is only a study." CRS
reports are not posted by the Library of Congress, but a copy of this
report can be found at: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/RS21762.pdf
Administration concern that hostile nations are hardening targets
by deeply burying them underground led to its request last year for
initial funding for research on the RNEP. The RNEP would adapt an existing
nuclear warhead to "hold at risk" deeply buried or hardened
targets. This proposal was very controversial, with considerable congressional
debate in both the House and Senate. The final agreement in the FY
2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations report stated:
"The conferees provide $7,500,000 for the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator study, instead of $5,000,000 as proposed
by the House and $15,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. The conferees
remind the Administration that none of the funds provided may
be used for activities at the engineering development phases,
phase 3 or 6.3, or beyond, in support of advanced nuclear weapons
concepts, including the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator."
At least five hearings have been held this year at which the Administration's
RNEP request has been discussed. Linton Brooks, Administrator of
the National Nuclear Security Administration, has been asked to explain
the budget projections for this new weapon. Brooks' response has
been consistent at these hearings: that the projected out year (e.g.,
beyond FY 2005) figures should be regarded as "place holders"in
a five-year plan if the decision is made to continue beyond the constraints
in the above report language. Furthermore, Brooks told committee
members, the figures are intended to suggest what level of funding
might be required if the Administration requests, and the Congress
agrees to, a specific authorization for 6.3 developmental engineering
and beyond of the RNEP.
In response to a direct question at one of the Senate hearings about
whether the Administration has determined if it wants to proceed
to Phase 6.3 engineering development of RNEP, Brooks replied "No,
sir." This response has satisfied many, but not all, committee
members. At a different hearing, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) told Brooks
that "many remain unconvinced that this is an appropriate path." Senator
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was blunter in her comments, citing the above-
mentioned CRS study and saying, "I think that number casts doubts
on the contention that this is just a study and that all we are doing
is just a study, because I don't believe that there can be a commitment
of nearly $500 million for just a study." Chairman Pete Domenici
(R-NM) replied that he did not favor a new round of weapons development,
but contended that scientists should be allow the study such a weapon.
At a March 11 hearing, House Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee Chairman David Hobson (R-OH) made clear his sentiments
regarding the Administration's nuclear weapons initiatives. To Energy
Secretary Spencer Abraham, Hobson said:
"I find it really hard to conceive of any circumstances
under which this country would even use a nuclear weapon again
whether or not the weapon is low-yield, whether or not it is
a more robust version of an existing weapon and whether or not
it would be used against a hard and buried target. Despite those
constraints, DOE seems to think they should spend another half
a billion dollars of taxpayers' dollars to explore and test the
concept of Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. This kind of, quote,
'Money is no object,' unquote thinking might have been the norm
for the nuclear weapons complex during the Cold War years, but
I think it's completely out of touch with the political and fiscal
realities that we face today."
Hobson's position is counter to that of other Members of Congress
who have direct jurisdiction over RNEP funding, such as Domenici,
who chairs the Senate counterpart of Hobson's subcommittee. The future
of this weapon will undoubtedly be another major source of contention
as Congress considers what course it should support for the RNEP
in FY 2005 and beyond.
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3095
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl