A Plague on the Nation

Monday, August 16, 2004

Making and testing more nukes a bad idea

The Daily Herald

Our nation's greatest security challenge is shutting down global terrorist networks, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and reducing the likelihood that they are someday used by other countries or terrorists.

Even as President George W. Bush rightly calls upon others to foreswear nuclear weapons, he is asking Congress to approve a costly and counterproductive campaign to research new, more "usable" nuclear weapons designed to destroy underground, nonnuclear targets. Such weapons have no practical role in dealing with terrorist networks and their devastating power makes them inappropriate against nonnuclear targets.

What's more, the development of new types of nuclear bombs could also lead to renewed testing at the Nevada Test Site.

Bush administration officials say there are currently no plans to resume nuclear testing. They also claim that no decision has been made to move from the current research phase to development of new types of nuclear weapons. Though the administration may not have made a formal decision to build and test a new weapon, there is ample evidence that suggests it is preparing the way to do so.

The administration wants Congress to appropriate an additional $30 million a year to reduce the time needed to resume testing to 18 months. The Bush administration continues to oppose the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Earlier this year, the Energy Department outlined a five-year, $500 billion spending plan for research and development of a new high-yield nuclear weapon called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and it has begun research on a new nuclear weapon capable of destroying chemical and biological agents in storage.

The administration also claims that these new weapons projects will only "slightly complicate" U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts. That's an understatement. The reality is that new U.S. nuclear weapons development or testing will only give former adversaries and proliferators -- such as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and India -- an excuse to follow suit.

Thankfully, congressional Republicans and Democrats -- including Utah's delegation -- have begun to raise serious questions.

The House Appropriations Committee voted to cut funding for proposed new nuclear weapons projects. In its June report, the committee said it is unconvinced by the Department of Energy's "superficial assurances" that it only wants to study the nuclear penetrator.

Next month, the Senate appropriations committee, including Utah's Sen. Robert Bennett, will have its chance to weigh in. Bennett announced that he is introducing legislation that would reinforce Congress' role in reviewing any presidential proposal to renew underground nuclear weapons testing and to establish additional monitoring stations for possible radiological effluents. U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson has introduced similar legislation in the House.

But the legislation is largely symbolic. Concerned members of Congress must take more decisive action to stop the administration well before the president proposes a resumption of testing.

Proponents of the new weapons say that by enhancing earth penetrating capabilities and reducing yields of nuclear weapons, adversaries may believe than an American president might actually be willing to use nuclear weapons to take out leadership and weapons targets. But the notion that nuclear weapons can be developed to destroy targets with little collateral damage is highly misleading and dangerous.

To contain the fallout of a relatively small 5 kiloton nuclear bomb, it would have to be detonated about 350 feet underground -- nearly 10 times the depth that current warheads can be made to penetrate the earth.

The proposed nuclear penetrator is far larger, with a yield likely to be more than 100 kilotons. Though it would be detonated a few meters underground, this bomb would produce wide-scale fallout that would contaminate and kill civilians, as well as U.S. military personnel in the area.

The bomb that destroyed Hiroshima had a blast equivalent to 13 kilotons of TNT. Even if smaller weapons were used against suspected chemical or biological weapons sites, small errors in intelligence and targeting could disperse rather than destroy deadly material.

Nuclear weapons should not be seen as simply another weapon in the United States' vast arsenal. So long as nuclear weapons exist, their role should be limited to deterring the use of nuclear weapons by others.

U.S. leaders must act decisively to prevent renewed nuclear blasts -- whether they are underground test explosions in Nevada or in future war in a foreign land. They can start by eliminating expensive and unnecessary new nuclear weapons projects and reconsidering ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Daryl G. Kimball is executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, D.C.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A5.