It will be "a hugely difficult decision" Ambassador Linton
F. Brooks told members of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee at
a hearing earlier this month when he discussed the decision a President
would make about the use of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP),
more commonly known as a Bunker Buster. While Brooks' comment centered
on the use of RNEP after it was deployed, it also describes the decisions
Congress will make this year about funding several Bush Administration
nuclear weapons initiatives.
Congress and the Bush Administration wrestled over several nuclear
weapons initiatives last year. Surprisingly, the final Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill did not include requested funding for
RNEP, Advanced Weapons Concepts, site selection for a Modern Pit Facility,
and Nevada Test Site Enhancement Readiness (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/154.html.)
During the debate that preceded the final funding decisions, critics
charged that the Administration was underplaying the impact that RNEP
use would have, the ultimate intentions of the Administration to build
RNEP, and the magnitude of a decision to use any nuclear device.
A series of hearings have been held since the Bush Administration sent
its FY 2006 request for the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to Congress that seem to outline the Administration's strategy
to counter the type of criticism leveled last year. The Administration
requested funding for an RNEP study, planning for a Modern Pit Facility,
a transition to an 18-month test site readiness, and for what has been
known as Advanced Weapons Concepts. NNSA Administrator Brooks appeared
before the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee earlier this month. The
subcommittee chair is Terry Everett (R-AL) and the Ranking Minority
Member is Silvestre Reyes (D-TX). Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman testified
earlier before the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
Brooks' testimony was the more revealing of the Administration's approach
to securing funding this year. Brooks explained that Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld personally requested that NNSA seek $4.0 million for
an RNEP feasibility and cost study (the Pentagon seeks similar funding.)
Brooks said, "I want to emphasize that we're asking for funds
to complete the study. That, unlike our proposals of the past, we're
asking to analyze only one weapon rather than two and that, unlike last
year, we are not providing any funds in our five-year projection beyond
the study. Last year we allowed the erroneous impression to form that
we had made decisions to produce this weapon. That's not true. And to
avoid that impression we've clarified it in our budget submission."
Later in his testimony Brooks briefly outlined the Administration's
position on the Modern Pit Facility. Said Brooks, "Last year,
the Congress prohibited us from making a selection for a site for the
so-called Modern Pit Facility . . . that will allow us to refurnish
and remanufacture warhead pits. We are requesting in this budget $7.7
million to continue design work and I believe it is important that the
prohibition against site selection not continue into the coming year."
In response to a question about the annual production of the pit
facility, Brooks stated, "One hundred and twenty-five is the
lowest number analyzed in the environmental impact statement. I think
it is unlikely that we would see something much lower. My guess is,
as a practical matter, it's going to end up somewhere between that and
the low 200s. But we don't know yet." The previous request
was for a facility with an annual production of 450 pits.
Brooks next addressed the effect of using an RNEP. In response to this
question from Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), "I just want to know
is there is any way an RNEP of any size that we would drop will not
produce a huge amount of radioactive debris?," Brooks straightforwardly
answered, "No, there is not." Brooks also answered
a question about whether the proposed RNEP study would examine decreasing
the power of current warheads. Brooks replied: "We are not looking
at changing the yield of the physics package. We are looking at . .
. a couple of aspects. One is a hardened case. The other is very precise
control of the attitude . . . and that's a not-trivial technology issue.
. . . What we're trying to make sure of is that the physics package
survives intact a few meters into the ground." When asked how
deeply RNEP could borrow into the earth, Brooks said that figure was
unknown, suggesting it could be "a couple of tens of meters,
maybe."
Brooks continued with an important point: ". . . I really must
apologize for my lack of precision if we in the Administration have
suggested that it was possible to have a bomb that penetrated far enough
to trap all fallout. . . . I don't believe the laws of physics will
ever let that be true. It is certainly not what we think we're doing
now. What we're trying to [do is] get in the ground far enough
so that the energy goes deep into ground to hold at risk deeply buried
facilities. But it is very important for this committee to recognize
what we on our side recognize. This is a nuclear weapon that is going
to be hugely destructive and destructive over a large area. No sane
person would use a weapon like that lightly, and I regret any impression
that anybody, including me, has given that would suggest that this is
going to be any easier a decision. . . . I do want to make it clear
that any thought . . . [that] nuclear weapons . . . aren't really
destructive is just nuts."
Regarding the RNEP study, Brooks framed one of the major issues that
will be asked on Capitol Hill in coming months: "My [personal]
view . . . is that the world's only superpower would be ill-advised
to be in a position where there is something that we can't hold at risk
somehow, because I think that weakens deterrence. But that's the debate
that we need to have. . . . "
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl