http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp...6&Cat=4&Num=018

Bush pushes for next generation of nuclear weapons

MERCURY, Nev. ( USA TODAY) — If the Bush administration succeeds in its determined but little-noticed push to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, this sun-baked desert flatland 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas could once again reverberate with the ground-shaking thumps of nuclear explosions that used to be common here.

The nuclear-weapons test areas are now a wasteland that is home mostly to lizards and coyotes. Throughout the Nevada Test Site, the ground is strewn with mangled buildings and pockmarked with craters, the ghostly evidence of the 928 nuclear tests the government conducted here from 1951 to 1992.

A concrete tower designed to hold the bomb for what would have been the 929th test still looms over the desert floor.

But "Icecap," the test of a bomb 10 times the size of the one that devastated the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945, was halted when the first President Bush placed a moratorium on U.S. nuclear tests in October 1992. The voluntary test ban came two years after Russia stopped its nuclear tests.

In the 11 years since, the United States has worked to halt the spread of nuclear weapons around the world and has often touted its own self-imposed restraint as a model for other nations.

But the Bush administration has now taken a decidedly different approach, one that has touched off a passionate debate in Washington. Last year the White House released, to little publicity, the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review. That policy paper embraces the use of nuclear weapons in a first strike and on the battlefield; it also says a return to nuclear testing may soon be necessary. It was coupled with a request for $70 million to study and develop new types of nuclear weapons and to shorten the time it would take to test them.

Last November, months before the invasion of Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld casually told reporters during a flight to Chile that military strategists were examining ways to neutralize Iraq's chemical and biological weapons. Among options studied were bunker-busting bombs that might have nuclear payloads.

Bunker-busters are heavy, missile-like bombs with hardened noses that penetrate the ground before exploding. No nuclear bunker-busters were employed in Iraq, although their use was considered there and in Afghanistan.

But the matter-of-fact way in which Rumsfeld suggested their possible role was a rare public sign of a growing effort by the administration to end the decade-long ban on developing and testing new nuclear bombs.

The main reason offered by the Pentagon is that "rogue" nations such as North Korea, Iran and Libya have gone deep, building elaborate bunkers hundreds of feet underground where their leaders and weapons could ride out an attack by the biggest conventional weapons U.S. forces could throw at them. U.S. officials also theorize that the vaporizing blast of a nuclear bomb might be the only way to safely destroy an enemy's chemical or biological weapons.

The Pentagon says developing new nuclear weapons makes sense in a dangerous world. "Without having the ability to hold those targets at risk, we essentially provide sanctuary," J.D. Crouch, an assistant secretary of Defense, told reporters earlier this year.

But others argue that moving toward a new generation of nuclear weapons, instead of improving conventional and non-nuclear ways to attack deep targets or chemical weapons sites, is fraught with danger. "They are opening the door to a new era of a global nuclear arms competition," says Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, D.C.

"As we try to turn the tide of nuclear proliferation, the last thing we should suggest is that nuclear weapons have a role in the battlefield, and these weapons are battlefield weapons. This is a serious step in the wrong direction."

Kimball and others say research would eventually lead to testing. If Congress approves the White House requests, the first live tests of any new nuclear weapon could come as early as 2005. Since 1992, weapons have been tested only in non-nuclear experiments 963 feet below the ground at the test site and in computer simulations here and in labs. Congress has mostly gone along with the new approach and has green-lighted most of the Bush administration proposals. This spring, the House of Representatives and the Senate agreed to spend $15.5 million to develop a nuclear bunker-buster called the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator."

They also agreed to spend money to make changes to the Nevada Test Site, shortening to as little as 18-24 months the time it would take to resume nuclear tests. (It would take 24-36 months now.)

Congress is hung up on just one element of the Bush plan: a ban on researching and developing a nuclear bomb with a payload of 5 kilotons or less. (A kiloton is equivalent to the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT.) The Senate voted to end the ban, while the House voted to keep it; the two sides are expected to settle their differences in a House-Senate conference committee by August.

http://www.ananuclear.org/rnep.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear Bunker Busters, Low Yield Weapons, and
Other Advanced Nuclear Concepts

Update | Background | Legislative Analysis | Talking Points | Additional Materials | Sources


UPDATE
ANA CHEERS HOUSE ACTION on Nuclear Weapons and Cleanup Funding.

Press Release | Chairman Hobson's Statement | Key Excerpts from House Report

Budget spreadsheet (pdf) | Links to Budget Documents

Kennedy/Feinstein Debate (FY05 Senate Defense Authorization)
ANA Reacts to the FY 2005 DOE Budget proposal
CRS Report: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Budget Request and Plan, FY2005-FY2009
April 9, 2004

BACKGROUND
The Bush administration and some Members of Congress want to develop a nuclear bunker buster to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets that may contain command and control centers, key leadership personnel and stockpiles of chemical and/or biological weapons. The Department of Energy is currently engaged in a three-year "feasibility study" to research and develop the nuclear bunker buster, costing $15 million per year. The design is based on modified, rather than new, nuclear warheads which have the ability to be given large yields in the hundreds of kilotons or small yields less than 5 kilotons, thereby avoiding the Spratt-Furse prohibition (click here for more information on Spratt-Furse).

Section 3136 of the Fiscal Year 1994 Defense Authorization Act includes a prohibition on "research and development which could lead to the production by the United States of a low-yield nuclear weapon" of less than five kilotons (the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of approximately 15 kilotons). Championed by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and Rep. Elizabeth Furse (D-OR), the "Spratt-Furse prohibition" has remained in effect for almost a decade despite previous attempts in Congress to overturn it. This year, the Pentagon sent Congress a draft Defense Authorization bill that includes a request to repeal the Spratt-Furse prohibition (Section 221 of H.R. 1588). In addition, the Republican House Policy Committee issued a report explicitly stating a desire to overturn this prohibition.
HOUSE SENATE
Defense Authorization

Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) obtained 78 signatures on his letter opposing the nuclear bunker buster.
Letter (pdf) | Press Release (pdf)

In the Subcommittee markup, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) offered an amendment to prohibit any funds in FY 2004 from being used for research and development of new nuclear weapons. The amendment would have restricted for one year the activities that could be undertaken with $6 million requested for the Advanced Concepts Initiative. The amendment failed on a strict partisan vote – all eight Republicans voted against it and all six democrats voted in favor. Rep. Spratt (D-S.C.) offered a modification to the amendment that would have allowed for research, but not development and production of new nuclear weapons. Rep. Tauscher declined to accept this modification.

In the HASC markup, Rep. Tauscher offered an amendment to move the $15.5 million for RNEP development and $6 million for advanced concepts to conventional bunker busters. Nasty debate. Lost, 28-29. Hefley was the only R voting in favor; the vote was held open for a mission R to show up and break the tie. A missing D remained missing. See vote record at http://fcnl.org/pdfs/HASCfy04.pdf

In the HASC report (108-106), the committee wrote that it "believes that NNSA should consider more significant future investment in these activities."

On the House floor, Reps. Tauscher & Markey offer amendment to move the $15.5 million for RNEP development and $6 million for advanced concepts to conventional bunker busters. The amendment lost 199-226. This is 27 votes better than the similar vote last year.

ANA has published the House debate and other speeches on RNEP at http://www.ananuclear.org/houseDA04.html

Energy & Water Appropriations

In advance of consideration of the Energy & Water Appropriations bill, Congressman Ed. Markey (D-MA) circulated a dear colleague opposing the nuclear bunker buster that garnered 83 signatures. In an unprecedented move, the House Energy & Water Subcommittee cut $262 million from the nuclear weapons activities budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This included cutting $10 million from the nuclear bunker buster program and all of the $6 million for advanced concepts. There were no attempts to restore this funding in full committee or on the floor. However, in full committee, Congressman Norm Dicks (D-WA) was able to add language that steers the research on the bunker buster to focus more on devising the casing to enable earth penetration, rather than on the modification of the warhead itself (see http://www.ananuclear.org/FY04full.html#rnep).

Key Excerpts from the 2004 Defense Authorization Act

Energy/Water Budget Update
Defense Authorization

In the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), a motion to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from beginning development of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), unless each phase is specifically authorized by Congress failed 12-13. See vote record at http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/SASCfy2004.pdf

On the Senate floor, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for a nuclear earth penetrator
weapon (RNEP). The amendment failed (tabled) 56-41. See vote record at http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/mini-nukes/senatevotesfy04.pdf

In addition, the Senate voted to adopt an amendment offered by Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) limiting work on nuclear bunker busters to research only, requiring specific Congressional authorization for any development activities.

The Senate also adopted another amendment offered by Senator Bill Nelson to require that the Defense Department consider a conventional bunker buster alternative to the nuclear options under the RNEP study.

ANA has posted the entire Senate debate on the nuclear bunker buster at http://www.ananuclear.org/SenateRNEP.html

Key Excerpts from the 2004 Defense Authorization Act

Energy & Water Appropriations

The Senate honored the Administration request for the nuclear bunker buster, though Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) spoke out against new nuclear weapons programs in the Energy & Water Subcommittee markup. For information on her amendment, cosponsored by Kennedy, view our Feinstein-Kennedy Amendment page. Some Senators plan to offer amendments to try and cut the budget for the nuclear bunker buster and related programs when the bill comes to the Senate floor.

Feinstein/Kennedy Debate (FY04 Senate Energy & Water Appropriations)

Energy/Water Budget Update

TALKING POINTS
Key reasons to oppose the repeal of the Spratt-Furse prohibition and the funding of nuclear bunker busters.

* A nuclear bunker-buster, whether large or small, would create massive collateral damage, which, if located in an urban area could kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Bombing stockpiles of chemical and/or biological weapons would likely spread some of these agents to surrounding areas;

* Low-yield nuclear weapons blur the line between conventional and nuclear weapons, increasing the likelihood they will be used in conflict, breaking a taboo that has been in place since their use in 1945 during World War II;

* Developing new or modified nuclear weapons sends the wrong message to other nations who may also view them as desirable and usable. This development places in jeopardy the Non-Proliferation Treaty, whereby the United States and other nuclear powers pledged to disarm in return for other nations not seeking nuclear weapons.

* If the Spratt-Furse prohibition is repealed, the development of a new low-yield nuclear weapons could lead to the resumption of underground nuclear testing in order to test the new weapons. This would overturn the 10 year moratorium on nuclear testing and could lead other nuclear powers to also resume testing which would have a chilling effect on future arms control and non-proliferation efforts.

* Because nuclear bunker-busters would be seen as tactical nuclear weapons, the development of these weapons would make it more difficult to encourage Russia to dispose of its arsenal of over 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons.

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
* Letter from Rep. Hobson and Rep. Visclosky to Linton Brooks concerning DOE memo to Weapons Lab Directors. PDF

* Linton Brooks memo to Weapon Lab Directors on Nuclear Weapons Research. PDF

* U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy Undermines NonProliferation, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
http://www.ananuclear.org/nuclearpolicyfs.html

* A More Usable Nuclear Weapon?, Nuclear Watch of New Mexico
http://www.nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/RNEPFactSheetLowRes.pdf

* Fighting Wars With Tactical Nuclear Weapons, Physicians for Social Responsibility
http://www.psr.org/home.cfm?id=Tac_nukes

* No New Nukes, Peace Action Education Fund
http://www.peace-action.org/camp/nukes/nonewnuksfs.pdf

* Sliding Towards the Brink: More Useable Nuclear Weapons and the Dangerous Illusions of High-Tech War, Western States Legal Foundation
http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/nucpreppdf.pdf

* Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request for Nuclear Weapons Activities, An Analysis by Dr. Robert Civiak for Tri-Valley CAREs
http://www.trivalleycares.org/FY04_BudgetAnalysis.pdf

* Countering Proliferation, or Compounding it? The Bush Administration’s Quest for Earth-Penetrating and Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons, Natural Resources Defense Council
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/bush/abb.pdf

* Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons, By Robert W. Nelson for the Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

* Fire In The Hole: Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Options for Counterproliferation, Michael Levi, Federation of American Scientists
http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/wp31.asp?from=pubdate

* Toward Nuclear Sanity.A Response to "Differentiation and Defense: An Agenda for the Nuclear Weapons Program," The Nuclear Weapons Working Group.
http://www.ananuclear.org/HPCresponse.html

* Briefing Book on Nuclear Weapons, Center for Arms Control & Nonproliferation
http://www.clw.org/control/briefing-book-new-nukes.pdf

* Nuclear Bunker Busters: Unusable, Costly, and Dangerous, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/nukes/bunkerbusters.html

*Background on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Friends Committee on National Legislation
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/arm/sup/min_ear...entratr5102.htm



SOURCES
ANA has posted the entire Senate debate on the nuclear bunker buster at http://www.ananuclear.org/SenateRNEP.html

The House Armed Services Committee has published HR 1588 and the report 108-106 to its website at
http://www.house.gov/hasc/reports/108.html

The text of the House Defense Authorization report is linked directly at http://www.house.gov/hasc/billsandreports/.../hr_1588rpt.htm

The Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the FY04 Defense Authorization bill, S. 1050, is located in text at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1050:

The text of Senate report 108-46 is linked directly at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&r...6&dbname=cp108&

The Congressional Record for Tuesday, May 20 through Thursday, May 22.

Updates from the following groups were also used in preparing this report: the Arms Control Advocacy Collective, British American Security Information Council, Council for a Livable World, and Friends Committee on National Legislation.