|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Testing: Run Subcritical Tests Above Ground, Princeton Expert Says By David McGlinchey “These activities are creating an uncertainty,” Frank von Hippel, chairman of the Federation of American Scientists and a Princeton University professor, told Global Security Newswire yesterday. In lieu of nuclear tests, which are prohibited by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, underground subcritical tests are conducted at the U.S. Energy Department’s Nevada Test Site. Since 1997, the United States has conducted 19 subcritical tests, which help maintain the U.S. nuclear stockpile by examining plutonium under high pressure without creating a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. Officials should stop underground operations at the test site, von Hippel said Nov. 14 at a nonproliferation conference sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “We don’t need to do it underground,” he said. “We should shut down the test sites,” he added. Underground testing is sometimes difficult to detect and leads to uncertainty and suspicion, experts at the conference said. A full-blown nuclear test conducted above ground would be easily detected using available sensors and could not be disguised as a subcritical test, according to panel members. If above-ground subcritical tests became the international norm, countries could avoid periodic accusations and misunderstandings regarding underground tests, according to von Hippel. For example, earlier this year, U.S. officials said that Russia might be preparing to conduct nuclear tests, a charge that Russian officials denied (see GSN, May 28). Subcritical tests could easily be housed in thick steel-walled containers, von Hippel said. Some of the tests might have to be slightly modified, he said, but such containers have been used to conduct previous tests. The test site facilities are maintained to allow the United States to return to full nuclear testing, if needed, within two to three years, according to von Hippel. It is doubtful that it would take much longer than two years to restart nuclear testing, however, if the facilities were closed down, he said. “Our posture is that we should be ready … you could put them in some kind of less-ready condition,” von Hippel said. Pro-Nuclear Political Climate Republican victories in the recent U.S. elections make it unlikely that the subcritical tests will be moved above ground or that the tests site will be closed, von Hippel acknowledged. “I don’t think it’s politically practical at the moment,” he said. Lawmakers and government officials have recently suggested re-examining the U.S. moratorium on nuclear tests (see GSN, Nov. 19), and president George W. Bush has indicated he will not seek the ratification of the test ban treaty, which was signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1996. A future swing in political momentum could allow von Hippel’s proposal a chance in Washington, he said. Until then, however, the United States seems unlikely to board up its test site. “It’s a pity that the decision wasn’t made when we signed the test ban,” von Hippel said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
