WASHINGTON -- A top-level independent advisory panel has told the Obama administration that the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal could remain viable for years to come using standard warhead life-extension approaches (see GSN, Nov. 9).
(Nov. 20) -
Thomas D'Agostino, head of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration. The agency last month received an expert report that found that existing warhead life-extension approaches could keep the nation's nuclear arsenal viable for decades (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration photo).
If embraced by Washington, the finding would suggest that the United States could avoid building an expensive new generation of nuclear warheads to replace those currently fielded.
"Lifetimes of today's nuclear warheads could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss of confidence, by using approaches similar to those employed" in maintaining the stockpile to date, according to JASON, a panel of senior scientific and technical experts frequently consulted by the U.S. government.
The findings are already proving controversial, though more than a year has passed since Congress twice denied Bush administration funding requests for developing a new series of weapons -- called the Reliable Replacement Warhead -- aimed at modernizing U.S. nuclear arms (see GSN, Nov. 7, 2008).
President Barack Obama's national security team remains split over how best to keep the stockpile functioning, even as the White House embarks on an ambitious agenda aimed at eventually eliminating nuclear weapons (see GSN, Aug. 18).
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and some of his top generals have insisted that at least one or two vintage warheads would have to be replaced with more modern designs if the nuclear arsenal is to remain functional (see GSN, Sept. 24).
Arguing last year that replacement approaches should be developed, Gen. Kevin Chilton described warheads as "actually little chemistry experiments that are cooking away." In the absence of explosive nuclear testing to gauge their gradual degradation, "I sense there's a cliff out there someplace, and I don't know how close I am to the edge of that cliff," said the general, the military's top combatant commander for nuclear weapons (see GSN, Sept. 12, 2008).
Since the early 1990s, the United States has maintained a moratorium on underground nuclear tests. Whether the Senate will formalize that policy by ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty -- a top Obama administration objective -- has yet to be seen.
Vice President Joseph Biden has led a contingent arguing behind closed doors that new U.S. warheads are unwarranted and could undercut international support for Washington's nonproliferation and disarmament goals. It might be difficult to convince other nations to condemn suspected nuclear-weapon development programs in places like Iran or North Korea if the United States is seen as expanding its own arsenal of atomic warhead designs, according to this line of thinking.
Global Security Newswire last week broke the story that the JASONs' secret report had found that the existing stockpile could remain safe, secure and reliable without the introduction of more modern warhead designs.
A House committee last year commissioned the assessment of warhead life-extension programs. The panel's final document was submitted in October to the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semiautonomous arm of the Energy Department.
An unclassified "executive summary" of the JASON report -- now widely circulating after it was obtained by the New America Foundation's Jeffrey Lewis and posted yesterday to his blog -- appears to offer Biden's camp a boost.
"JASON finds no evidence that accumulation of changes incurred from aging and [life-extension programs] have increased risk to certification of today's deployed nuclear warheads," the document states.
"This should drive a stake through the heart of the RRW and warhead 'replacement' in general," stated Lewis, who supports the vice president's position on the matter.
Warheads in today's U.S. arsenal are decades old in their designs but are periodically refurbished as they cycle through life-extension programs.
The W-76 warhead used on the Navy Trident D-5 missile is currently undergoing life extension, and the Energy Department is studying how it might update the warhead used on Air Force B-61 gravity bombs. In the past, such life-extension initiatives have typically overhauled or replaced corroded metal parts and other aging weapons components.
The JASON validation of life-extension approaches "means that the current nuclear arsenal -- which is safe, reliable and effective -- can be maintained without resorting to untested new designs," said Stephen Young, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program. "There is no need to develop a new warhead to sustain our existing arsenal. This report should end the debate on this question."
That appears unlikely.
"I would advise against reading more into this finding than may be warranted by suggesting that past success guarantees future success," David Trachtenberg, a former Defense Department policy official who served under President George W. Bush, told GSN. "I would be hesitant to conclude that the future certifiability of the stockpile is assured because we have found 'no evidence' to suggest otherwise."
After the document was leaked yesterday afternoon, the National Nuclear Security Administration released a statement offering mixed praise for the report's conclusions.
"While we endorse the recommendations and consider them well aligned with NNSA's long-term stockpile management strategy, certain findings in the unclassified executive summary convey a different perspective on key findings when viewed without the context of the full classified report," said Damien LaVera, a spokesman for NNSA Administrator Thomas D'Agostino.
"The full report addresses them comprehensively and validates our basic scientific approach to warhead life extension programs, specifically our commitment to evaluating each weapon system on a case-by-case basis and applying the best technological approach from a spectrum of options," LaVera said.
"Obviously one size will not fit all for every weapon type," said one House staffer.
The House Armed Services Committee, which originally requested the JASON review, recently received the classified report and planned to share it with its Senate counterpart and appropriations committees in both chambers, according to Capitol Hill sources.
Representatives James Langevin (D-R.I.) and Michael Turner (R-Ohio) -- the top Democrat and Republican on the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee -- yesterday released a joint statement saying the JASON "recommendations provide a sound technical basis to inform subsequent U.S. nuclear weapons policy and program decisions."
The JASON report summary also calls attention to what the panel sees as degradation in the government's ability to monitor the nuclear weapon stockpile and assess whether it remains viable.
"The surveillance program is becoming inadequate," the document states without much elaboration. The science panel recommended that the government ensure that its effort to watch over warhead status is being fully implemented.
Another JASON "concern" is that the government should maintain "expertise and capabilities in science, technology, engineering and production unique to the nuclear weapons program," according to the executive summary.
"This will be the case regardless of whether future [life-extension programs] utilize refurbishment, reuse or replacement," the panel continued. "The study team is concerned that this expertise is threatened by lack of program stability, perceived lack of mission importance, and degradation of the work environment."
The House staffer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that supporting a robust nuclear-weapon research capability and modern facilities is almost as important as maintaining the warheads themselves.
When a Pentagon-led Nuclear Posture Review is released in January, "we would expect to see a modernization plan which would include measures to enhance long-term safety, security and reliability of the stockpile, as well as modernization of the nuclear weapons infrastructure and human capital," the aide said. "You can't do one without the other."
For his part, Lewis saw in the JASON finding a subtle criticism of the toll that a focus on warhead replacement might be taking on U.S. nuclear-weapon engineers and scientists.
The JASON concern "is a very polite way of saying the push for new warheads like ... RRW, far from being a panacea, has endangered the stockpile by politicizing what ought to be a technical question, creating program instability and low morale," he wrote on his blog, ArmsControlWonk.com.