|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Senators Raise Concerns on Nuclear Weapons Programs By David Ruppe WASHINGTON ð– Democratic senators yesterday raised concerns about the Bush administration’s fiscal 2005 budget request for nuclear weapons research and development, suggesting a tough congressional fight over the plans in the coming months (See GSN, March 22). Democrats on the Senate Appropriations and Armed Services committees indicated problems with two particular efforts – a feasibility study on a high-yield earth penetrating nuclear weapon and research and development of low-yield weapons. They questioned whether research and development work on such “advanced concepts” programs, for which the administration is seeking $37 million in fiscal 2005, is part of a plan to develop and build new or modified nuclear weapons. “I am very suspicious. I think I know where you’re going and I think it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), addressing National Nuclear Security Administrator Linton Brooks at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing. Republican Subcommittee Chairman Pete Domenici of New Mexico said he backs Feinstein’s opposition to developing new weapons. “I don’t favor a new round of the development of nuclear weapons, I think I’m as firm on that as is the distinguished senator from California,” he said. Domenici said, though, that he believes the research and development program is intended to keep weapons scientists challenged and free of unreasonable restrictions. He asked, “whether we can ask our great scientists to just close their minds to these issues and say they cannot study them even if they fall before their face?” “The California senator can contend we’re building new weapons. I’ll contend we’re researching them,” he said. Potential for New Weapons Brooks told the committee the advanced concepts work was being done with an eye toward possibly deploying new nuclear weapons capabilities and for training scientists and engineers. The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review “directed NNSA to begin a modest effort to examine concepts that could be deployed to further enhance the deterrent capabilities of the stockpile in response to the national security challenges of the 21st century,” he said in a written statement to the subcommittee. He also wrote that the advanced concepts work is sought “to train the next generation of nuclear weapons scientists and engineers.” Brooks told the committee there is a “clear military utility” for the earth penetrator, but said that advanced development would only begin with administration and congressional approval. “Despite this obvious utility for the capability, we will move beyond the study stage only if the president approves and if funds are authorized and appropriated by Congress,” he said. Brooks said the administration has “no plans” for developing low-yield nuclear weapons, repeating testimony before a House committee last Thursday that there has been “a misunderstanding of our intent.” He left open the possibility that current work could lead to new weapons, saying, “We intend to use advanced concepts funds to investigate new ideas, not necessarily new weapons.” Long-Term Projections Feinstein cited a Congressional Research Service analysis published last week that showed the administration this year projects a $485 million future cost for the earth-penetrating weapon that includes post-study development work. “I think that number casts doubts on the contention that this is just a study. … I think it means the administration is determined to develop and field a new generation of nuclear weapons,” she said. Domenici urged Brooks to explain the administration’s intentions “unequivocally: what we are doing and we are authorizing, and what we are not doing and what we are not authorizing, because nobody on this committee is voting to do this, we’re voting to study it. … To study it is a small amount of money, to do it is a lot of money.” Brooks said the budget projection for the post-study work was given “only to preserve the president’s option. There won’t be any decision made until the study is completed.” Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) warned Brooks to “tread very carefully” on the funding question. “Congressional support for these programs is not very strong and I would encourage you to be very candid on a regular basis with your plans and intentions for all of these programs,” Reid said. He noted a letter Brooks sent to the national laboratories last December, “the one that said seemed to indicate it was OK to move forward as planned despite congressional guidance concerns us all.” Brooks said the letter was “poorly drafted.” Opposition to Offensively Aimed Weapons Feinstein charged the administration’s efforts are aimed at developing “tactical battlefield” weapons, more usable because they might cause fewer casualties. Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah) said he would oppose future funding for any new nuclear weapons intended for nonretaliatory use. “If indeed this president or some future president were to come to Congress while I was sitting in Congress to say, ‘OK, we’ve done the research, we think this is a viable weapon, we want now to fund it and we’re going to use it in a situation quite like Iraq,’ this senator would not vote in favor of that,” he said. “My view of a deterrent and the use of a nuclear stockpile during the Cold War is that it is never used unless the other side puts you in a position where you do it,” he said. Brooks said the nuclear weapons programs are intended for improving U.S. deterrence capabilities and that the high-yield earth penetrator “does not represent a change in our policy of deterrence.” Having more effective and usable weapons improves nuclear deterrence, he said. “We need to be able to tell those leaders there is nothing you can do that is beyond the reach of American power,” he said. Feinstein called the high-yield earth penetrator “bizarre” and “catastrophic.” “With the greatest respect, I think to have only the ability to destroy cities and kill people has its own set of problems,” Brooks said. No Nuclear Testing Intentions Also questioned was the administration’s intention regarding its initiative to reduce the preparation time necessary to conduct a live nuclear weapons test. Brooks said the administration currently has no plans for testing and seeks money, as it did last year, for shortening the lead time so testing could be resumed more quickly in the event it is ordered by the president to address a problem with the nuclear stockpile. “The president has made it very clear we have no plans of resuming underground testing,” he said. Domenici, meanwhile, scolded the administration for failing to provide Congress a long-overdue report on plans for the nuclear weapons stockpile. “We are eagerly awaiting that report. Soon this committee will begin developing our budget priorities. Failure to produce the stockpile report will have severe consequences for your funding priorities next year,” he said. Brooks said the report “is being worked on literally as we speak, but because of the importance, I think this will have to be personally approved by the president, I can’t predict how long that will take.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
