DOCSLIB.ORG

Bush's Nuclear Cuts?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bush's Nuclear Cuts? By Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen What’s Behind Bush’s Nuclear Cuts? t is not every day that the U.S. government major portions of the arsenal to make them more “useful,” shifting from high- decides to cut its nuclear-weapons stockpile yield Cold War weapons aimed at the former Soviet Union to “modifi ed,” or in half. Yet, the mainstream media paid new, more accurate, more “credible” nu- I clear weapons that could be used against little attention on June 1 when Linton F. a wider variety of targets including rogue states and terrorists as well as Russia and Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security China. Brooks’ announcement went a step further by addressing the disposi- Administration, announced that by 2012 the tion of all warhead categories in the stockpile: strategic and nonstrategic, ac- United States would reduce the number of tive and inactive, deployed and reserve (see page 9). nuclear weapons in the stockpile by “about half.” Unfortunately, however, the deci- sion also carried a hidden subtext: the retirement of almost half of the current He suggested that further cuts could in many earlier events that go back at stockpile, a total of more than 4,000 war- be in store in the future. Although the least seven years to a 1997 summit be- heads by our estimate, could help pave exact fi gures are classifi ed, we interpret tween Presidents Bill Clinton and Boris the way to developing and producing a the decision to mean that the current Yeltsin, including the never-completed new nuclear arsenal. Retiring thousands stockpile of more than 10,000 warheads START III, the 2001 Nuclear Posture Re- of warheads will free up funds that can, will be reduced to about 6,000. view (NPR), and the 2002 Strategic Of- the administration hopes, be put to bet- This decision was signifi cant, and fensive Reductions Treaty (SORT). ter use. This includes a series of programs Congress should be commended for The total size of the active strategic for constructing a “responsive infrastruc- pushing the Bush administration into arsenal refl ects cuts fi rst proposed for ture,” or “modern infrastructure,” that taking this important step. Still, it came START III and later crystallized in SORT, includes, among other things, building more than a decade after the end of the while the underlying motive behind the a Modern Pit Facility to manufacture Cold War, and the weapons retired from decision is evident in the NPR. The NPR plutonium parts for nuclear weapons; the stockpile will not be fully disman- called for retaining a nuclear arsenal supporting the scientists and engineers tled for another decade or more. Also, large enough to deter any country from at the weapons laboratories to design the cuts were less of a leap than it might challenging U.S. nuclear preeminence. and develop new or modifi ed nuclear seem; in fact, they had been prefi gured At the same time, it envisions retooling weapons; and reducing the time it takes Robert S. Norris is a senior research associate with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in Washington, DC. His most recent book is Racing for the Bomb: General Leslie R. Groves, the Manhattan Project’s Indispensable Man (2002). Hans M. Kristensen is an ex- ARMS CONTROL TODAY October 2004 ARMS CONTROL TODAY pert on nuclear weapons issues and is currently a consultant to NRDC. 6 to resume nuclear testing. Potentially, this bombs and sea-launched cruise missile unaffected, except for a small number could mean the resumption of testing and warheads intended for use in tactical or that are disassembled each year for rou- the building of a new and different nu- battlefi eld scenarios. All told, today’s tine analysis and examination. clear arsenal. Any additional future cuts stockpile includes more than 10,350 Still, eight years from now, more than would only come, Brooks indicated, if this warheads of nine basic types in 15 dif- 20 years after the end of the Cold War, infrastructure were up and running.1 ferent versions. Their yields range from the United States under current plans 0.3 kilotons to 1.2 megatons. Each de- will retain approximately 6,000 nuclear The Current livery platform (submarine, land-based weapons in its arsenal, almost all of them And Future Stockpile ICBM, or bomber) can accommodate at active with as many as 2,200 operation- Although the stockpile plan submitted least two different types of warheads. ally deployed. to Congress remains classifi ed, it is pos- The stockpile is far more than the 6,000 Moreover, the number of warheads sible to estimate what warheads will be warheads declared under START as many in the active arsenal in 2012 will differ retired and what warheads will be kept of the additional warheads have been in little from that planned under START II and thus project what the stockpile will inactive status, having been retained for reached with Russia and the proposed look like in 2012. We base our estimates the last decade in storage as a “hedge” START III. In setting a framework for on our long experience following trends against a Russian nuclear revival. START III negotiations, Clinton and and developments in the U.S. stockpile We conclude from our knowledge of Yeltsin set a goal of each country pos- and on some newly obtained informa- U.S. stockpile trends that Brooks’ an- sessing no more than 2,500 accountable tion, which makes us confi dent that the nouncement of plans to cut the stock- strategic warheads. The START III pro- fi gures below are very close to the actual pile by “almost half” means that some posal also included important guide- numbers. 4,325 warheads of six types are slated lines on transparency and verifications The current stockpile includes war- for retirement and disassembly. Some and other arms control restrictions that heads for the three legs of the old Cold warhead types will be completely re- were not included in SORT. The Bush War triad, that is, submarine-launched tired, such as the W62 and, we assume, administration has ridiculed the com- ballistic missiles (SLBMs), land-based the W84. Of the versions that remain in plexity of those treaties and the time it ICBMs, and bombs dropped from planes. the stockpile, there will be signifi cant took to achieve them. Yet, the crucial In addition, there are some nuclear cuts in six while seven others will be number of weapons in the active arse- Table 1 Cold War (1990) U.S. Stockpile Levels 1990-2012 START I (2001) START IIa START III (projected)b SORT (2012) 7,970 21,680 8,000 6,000 6,000 4,600 20,000 7,000 5,000 4,000 6,000 5,500 5,260 15,000 5,260 5,000 4,000 3,000 3,500 2,550 10,500 4,000 ARMS CONTROL TODAY October 2004 ARMS CONTROL TODAY 10,000 3,000 10,000 2,500 2,000 3,000 2,200 2,000 6,000 5,960 2,000 5,000 1,000 700 1,000 700 1,000 b Actualc Active Accountable Inactive a START II was ratifi ed by Russia and the United States but never entered into force and was abandoned because of a U.S.-Russian dispute over U.S. plans for a ballistic missile defense system. b As part of the Helsinki Summit of March 1997, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed to begin negotiations on a START III Treaty, but this never occurred. The only proposal to survive was the number of strategic warheads. We assumed a similar total stockpile size given the almost equal strategic force levels of START III and SORT. c Totals may not add due to rounding. 7 The Evolution of the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal n the 45 years following the 1945 such a large reserve was the uncertain- bombings of Hiroshima and Naga- ty over how to maintain the reliability nuclearweaponarchive.org Isaki, the United States built about of the stockpile over the long run. In 70,000 nuclear warheads of 65 types September 1992, the United States for 116 kinds of delivery systems.1 conducted its last nuclear explosive Very few bombs were built in the test; and on Sept. 24, 1996, President fi rst several years after World War II, Bill Clinton was the fi rst world leader but after the Soviet Union conducted to sign the CTBT. a nuclear test in August 1949, the U.S. In the absence of testing and with nuclear weapons complex was ex- The Mk-6 (pictured above) was the no new nuclear weapons coming off panded and the stockpile grew rapidly. fi rst nuclear weapon to be produced in the production line, the Department An intense interservice rivalry among quantity after World War II with about of Energy was charged with develop- the Air Force, Navy, and Army drove 1,100 bombs entering the stockpile ing a program to ensure the reliability between 1951 and 1954. The Mk-6 was the U.S. side to outpace actual and of the existing warheads indefi nitely. phased out between 1957 and 1961. imagined Soviet capabilities, produc- The result, lavishly funded at levels at ing a mighty action-reaction engine or above those of the Cold War, was that fueled the arms race. Adding to heads on ballistic missiles and better the so-called Stockpile Stewardship the intensity was a fi erce competition guidance systems, rather than ever Program, an ambitious effort to offset between the national laboratories at increasing numbers characterized the the loss of data from underground Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore 1970s and 1980s.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Weapons Program," Based on Nine Trips He Made to China from 1990 to 1999
    #93 21 Aug 2001 USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL Air University Air War College Maxwell AFB, Alabama Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical threats and attacks. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established here at the Air War College in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm for in-depth information and specific points of contact. Please direct any questions or comments on CPC Outreach Journal to Lt. Col. Michael W. Ritz, CPC Intelligence/Public Affairs or JoAnn Eddy, CPC Outreach Editor, at (334) 953- 7538 or DSN 493-7538. The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved Baltimore Sun August 18, 2001 Nations To Continue Talks On Biological Weapons Ban GENEVA - Major powers have agreed to more talks on strengthening a ban on biological weapons despite Washington's rejection of a draft protocol at negotiations in Geneva, the negotiating committee chairman said yesterday.
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Farquhar
    1 2 Created by Bob Farquhar For and dedicated to my grandchildren, their children, and all humanity. This is Copyright material 3 Table of Contents Preface 4 Conclusions 6 Gadget 8 Making Bombs Tick 15 ‘Little Boy’ 25 ‘Fat Man’ 40 Effectiveness 49 Death By Radiation 52 Crossroads 55 Atomic Bomb Targets 66 Acheson–Lilienthal Report & Baruch Plan 68 The Tests 71 Guinea Pigs 92 Atomic Animals 96 Downwinders 100 The H-Bomb 109 Nukes in Space 119 Going Underground 124 Leaks and Vents 132 Turning Swords Into Plowshares 135 Nuclear Detonations by Other Countries 147 Cessation of Testing 159 Building Bombs 161 Delivering Bombs 178 Strategic Bombers 181 Nuclear Capable Tactical Aircraft 188 Missiles and MIRV’s 193 Naval Delivery 211 Stand-Off & Cruise Missiles 219 U.S. Nuclear Arsenal 229 Enduring Stockpile 246 Nuclear Treaties 251 Duck and Cover 255 Let’s Nuke Des Moines! 265 Conclusion 270 Lest We Forget 274 The Beginning or The End? 280 Update: 7/1/12 Copyright © 2012 rbf 4 Preface 5 Hey there, I’m Ralph. That’s my dog Spot over there. Welcome to the not-so-wonderful world of nuclear weaponry. This book is a journey from 1945 when the first atomic bomb was detonated in the New Mexico desert to where we are today. It’s an interesting and sometimes bizarre journey. It can also be horribly frightening. Today, there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the civilized world several times over. Over 23,000. “Enough to make the rubble bounce,” Winston Churchill said. The United States alone has over 10,000 warheads in what’s called the ‘enduring stockpile.’ In my time, we took care of things Mano-a-Mano.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Testing and Proliferation – an Inextricable Connection
    Pre-Print Excerpt from Disarmament Diplomacy 91 (Publication date 8 September 2009) NUCLEAR TESTING AND PROLIFERATION – AN INEXTRICABLE CONNECTION Thomas Graham, Jr. and David Hafemeister To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my Administration will immediately and aggressively pursue US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned. President Barack Obama, Prague, Czech Republic, 5 April, 2009. I will begin working to build the necessary bipartisan support for US ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty ... success would be the single greatest arms control accomplishment for the new Senate and it would reestablish America’s traditional leadership role on nonproliferation. Senator John Kerry, Chair, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Boston Globe, 13 January, 2009. President Obama’s call in Prague to complete the the CTBT came before the Senate, and consider the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) consequences of the Senate vote against CTBT was widely praised on the global stage. But what ratification on 13 October, 1999. Ratification was will be entailed for the United States to ratify the defeated by 48 votes to 51, falling far short of the CTBT and reinvigorate international efforts to secure necessary two-thirds Senate majority. This vote was the remaining signatures and ratifications so that the forced prematurely after a curtailed debate by Treaty can at last enter into force? Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina), When deciding whether to vote for or against then Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations international treaties and agreements, Senators need Committee, citing procedural grounds.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
    An Arms Control Association Briefing Book Now More Than Ever The Case for The Comprehensive nuClear TesT Ban TreaTy February 2010 Tom Z. Collina with Daryl G. Kimball An Arms Control Association Briefing Book Now More Than Ever The CAse for The Comprehensive nuCleAr TesT BAn Treaty February 2010 Tom Z. Collina with Daryl G. Kimball About the Authors Tom Z. Collina is Research Director at the Arms Control Association. He has over 20 years of professional experience in international security issues, previously serving as Director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists and Executive Director of the Institute for Science and International Security. He was actively involved in national efforts to end U.S. nuclear testing in 1992 and international negotiations to conclude the CTBT in 1996. Daryl G. Kimball is Executive Director of the Arms Control Association. Previously he served as Executive Director of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, a consortium of 17 of the largest U.S. non-governmental organizations working together to strengthen national and international security by reducing the threats posed by nuclear weapons. He also worked as Director of Security Programs for Physicians for Social Responsibility, where he helped spearhead non-governmental efforts to win congressional approval for the 1992 nuclear test moratorium legislation, U.S. support for a “zero-yield” test ban treaty, and the U.N.’s 1996 endorsement of the CTBT. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank our colleagues Pierce Corden, David Hafemeister, Katherine Magraw, and Benn Tannenbaum for sharing their expertise and reviewing draft text.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uncertain Consequences of Nuclear Weapons Use
    THE UNCERTAIN CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS USE Michael J. Frankel James Scouras George W. Ullrich Copyright © 2015 The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory LLC. All Rights Reserved. NSAD-R-15-020 THE UNCERTAIN CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS USE iii Contents Figures ................................................................................................................................................................................................ v Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................................................vii Overview ....................................................................................................................................................................1 Historical Context .....................................................................................................................................................2 Surprises ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Enduring Uncertainties, Waning Resources ................................................................................................................10 Physical Effects: What We Know, What Is Uncertain, and Tools of the Trade .............................................. 12 Nuclear Weapons Effects Phenomena...........................................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Potential Impact of Foreign Testing: U.S. Security Interests and Concerns
    3 Potential Impact of Foreign Testing: U.S. Security Interests and Concerns This chapter addresses the potential impact on U.S. national-security interests and con- cerns of the degree of foreign nuclear testing that could plausibly occur without detection under a CTBT regime, or, alternatively, through overt testing. Our principal focus here is on the techni- cal question of what additions to their nuclear-weapon capabilities other countries could achieve through nuclear testing at yields that might escape detection, but we give some attention as well to the related military and political question of the impact of such additions on the security inter- ests and freedom of action of the United States. These questions are embedded in a wider set of political, military, and diplomatic circumstances which, although not in our charge to analyze here, must be mentioned by way of context for the narrower questions we address. Currently the United States is the preeminent nation in the world, measured in political, economic, and military terms. In the military dimension, the United States possesses dominant conventional forces as well as deployed and reserve nuclear weapons of mature and amply tested design. Should nuclear weapons proliferate widely across the globe, U.S. military pre-eminence will be diminished. Nuclear weapons are the “great equalizer” among the world’s strong and weak military powers. The freedom of action of the United States in exploiting its conventional military superiority will be limited if nations not now possessing nuclear weapons acquire them. The primary diplomatic tool for restraining the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in 1970.
    [Show full text]
  • How Much Warhead Reliability Is Enough for a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty?
    How Much Warhead Reliability Is Enough for a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? David Hafemeister I. Introduction The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) selected the winning design from the two nuclear weapons laboratories for the reliable replacement warhead (RRW) on March 2, 2007. The winning design by the Lawrence–Livermore National Laboratory was the more cautious design, and had been tested previously. The Los Alamos design was more creative, but had not been nuclear tested. With the Cold War over, NNSA is planning to make warheads that are less constrained in weight and, in principle, more reliable. The Congress and the Executive Branch have agreed that RRW will not be tested before it enters the stockpile. Of course, this does not guarantee that the decision not to test could not be reversed in the future. The JASON group will comment on the RRW designs during the next year and the American Association for the Advancement of Science will release its report on the RRW in March 2007. Our discussion is intended as background material to help understand the RRW decisions and reports. On March 6, a session at the Denver APS meeting considered the RRW and nuclear missions. Talks were given by John Harvey (Director of NNSA Policy and Planning), Lt. General C. Robert Kehler (Deputy Commander of STRATCOM), Bruce Tarter (Chair of the AAAS–RRW Study), Sidney Drell (Stanford), Ivan Oelrich (Federation of American Scientists). The need for the RRW has been called into doubt by the 2006 JASON report that concluded the following: [1] “Most primary types have credible minimum lifetimes in excess of 100 years as regards aging of plutonium; those with assessed minimum lifetime of 100 years or less have clear mitigation paths that are proposed and/or being implemented...There is no evidence for void swelling in naturally –Pu samples over the actual and acceleratedδaged or artificially aged times scales examined to date, and good reason to believe it will not occur on times scales of interest, if at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Weapons of Mass Destruction Topics for High School Policy Debate, with an Emphasis on Nuclear Policies
    The Nuclear Option: Exploring Weapons of Mass Destruction Topics for High School Policy Debate, with an Emphasis on Nuclear Policies Aaron Vinson Presented to the National Federation of State High School Associations August 2018 Spokane, Washington Resolutions Resolution A: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially change its nuclear weapon strategy. Resolution B: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially change its nuclear weapon policy. Resolution C: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce the mission(s) of its nuclear weapons. Resolution D: Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a foreign policy substantially increasing efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Resolution E: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce the size and/or role of its arsenal(s) of biological, chemical, cyber, nuclear, and/or radiological weapons. Resolution F: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce the size and/or role of its arsenal(s) of weapons of mass destruction. Note 2009‐2010 college NDT‐CEDA resolution: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal. Note 2001 high school policy resolution: Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy significantly limiting the use of weapons of mass destruction. Introduction • Timeliness • Interest Weapons of mass destruction have been creating exciting policy debates for decades yet they have only been the subject of two high school resolutions (2001‐2002 and 1964‐1965).
    [Show full text]
  • Arms Control Nonproliferation and Disarmament Studies
    ARMS CONTROL NONPROLIFERATION AND DISARMAMENT STUDIES ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS 1998 U.S. ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY - 1 - TABLE OF CONTENTS ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY .............................. 1 Arms Control .................................... .................................................... 1 Chemical and Biological Warfare .......………………………………. 1 Conventional Arms Control .................................................... ................3 Nuclear Proliferation .................... ..........................................………...4 Nuclear Testing ............................ .......................................... .........….5 Strategic Anus Control ........... .......................................... ....... .………5 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LINK ….6 U S. Military Strategy and Technology ....................................................6 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION CENTER .10 Chemical and Biological Warfare .........................................................10 Conventional Arms Control…... .......................................…………….24 Nuclear Proliferation ................ ........................………....... ...............29 Nuclear Testing ........................... .......................... ………………….33 Regional Arms Control .............. ..........................…. ...................... 35 Strategic Arms Control . .. .................... ..............................................37 U.S. Military Strategy and Technology ... ..............................................58
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Updated “Safeguards” and Net Assessments
    Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Updated “Safeguards” and Net Assessments Jonathan Medalia Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy June 3, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R40612 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty "Safeguards" Summary Limitations on nuclear testing have been on the international agenda since 1954. The United States ratified one such treaty in 1963 and two in 1990 that together bar all but underground nuclear tests with an explosive yield of 150 kilotons or less. The United States has observed a unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests since 1992. In 1996, this nation signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which would ban all nuclear explosions. The Senate rejected the CTBT in 1999. That debate focused on such pros and cons as whether the United States could maintain its nuclear weapons without testing, whether it could verify compliance with the treaty, and how the treaty would affect nuclear nonproliferation. Another aspect to past debates was “Safeguards,” measures that this nation can take unilaterally within the treaty to protect its nuclear security. To compensate for “disadvantages and risk” they saw in the treaty regime, the Joint Chiefs of Staff conditioned their support for the 1963 treaty on four Safeguards: an aggressive nuclear test program, maintaining nuclear weapon laboratories, maintaining the ability to resume atmospheric tests promptly, and improving intelligence and nuclear explosion monitoring capabilities. Safeguards were key to securing Senate ratification of the 1963 treaty. Updated Safeguards have been part of subsequent treaty ratification efforts. In April 2009, President Obama pledged to pursue U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MODERN PIT FACILITY (MPF) Affairs No Urgency for a MPF
    April 2004___________ ________________________________________ Panel On Public THE MODERN PIT FACILITY (MPF) Affairs No urgency for a MPF. Address key technical issues before proceeding. Issue Executive Summary Congress is considering whether to authorize construction of a Modern Pit Plutonium “pits” are the cores of modern nuclear weapons. In order to ensure that Facility capable of manufacturing the U.S. nuclear arsenal is safe and reliable, plutonium pits are closely monitored for plutonium pits for nuclear weapons, at any deterioration due to aging. an estimated cost of $2 to $4 billion. The average age of plutonium pits in the U.S. arsenal is 20 years with the oldest being about 26 years old. The minimum pit lifetime is currently estimated to be 45 to Conclusions 60 years, based largely on the modest changes observed in key properties of plutonium samples that are 40 years old. There are several technical issues to address before proceeding with The pits in the current nuclear weapons stockpile were manufactured at a facility that site selection or committing to an was shut down in 1989. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) MPF design. These decisions recently reestablished a limited capability to produce pits at the Los Alamos National should be deferred until Congress Laboratory. The NNSA has proposed an additional Modern Pit Facility (MPF) that can more thoroughly assess the could produce, depending on the final design, either 125, 250 or 450 pits per year in MPF and various alternatives single-shift operation, beginning in 2020. while supporting an enhanced research program on plutonium Recent Congressional hearings and associated testimony have indicated that a MPF aging.
    [Show full text]
  • Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan – Biennial Plan Summary Report to Congress
    Fiscal Year 2019 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan – Biennial Plan Summary Report to Congress October 2018 National Nuclear Security Administration United States Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration | October 2018 Message from the Administrator The Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration’s (DOE/NNSA) Fiscal Year 2019 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan – Biennial Plan Summary (SSMP) describes DOE/NNSA’s plans to ensure the safety, security, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and to maintain the scientific and engineering tools, capabilities, and infrastructure that underpin the nuclear security enterprise. The SSMP is a companion to the Prevent, Counter, and Respond: A Strategic Plan to Reduce Global Nuclear Threats report, which outlines NNSA’s equally vital missions to reduce the threats of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. In keeping with our commitment to Congress, updated versions of these reports are published each year. The fiscal year (FY) 2019 SSMP summarizes the activities being performed within DOE/NNSA’s national laboratories, production facilities, and security site in support of our enduring national security missions. In particular, this report describes the path to completing production of W76-1 warheads by FY 2019; delivering the first production unit of the B61-12 gravity bomb by FY 2020; delivering the first production unit of the W88 Alteration 370 by FY 2020; and achieving a first production unit of the W80-4 warhead by FY 2025. With four modernization programs underway, NNSA is at its busiest since the Cold War era. The FY 2019 SSMP also reflects DOE/NNSA’s increased commitment to revitalizing and reinvigorating the facilities and corresponding infrastructure that make up the nuclear security enterprise.
    [Show full text]