U.S. Sticks to Plan for Interoperable Nuclear Warheads, Despite Criticism

An unarmed Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missile test-launches from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The United States plans to develop interoperable nuclear warheads for use on both land-based and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
National Journal
Douglas P. Guarino
April 16, 2014, 9:58 a.m.

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion is stick­ing to a plan to de­vel­op con­tro­ver­sial new war­heads for the U.S. nuc­le­ar ar­sen­al, but op­pon­ents of the pro­ject are hold­ing out hope that of­fi­cials could still change course.

When it rolled out its fisc­al 2014 budget re­quest last year, the ad­min­is­tra­tion in­cluded a 25-year plan that it said could ul­ti­mately re­duce the num­ber of war­heads in the stock­pile by cre­at­ing weapons suited for mul­tiple tasks.

The first such war­head, to be called the “IW-1,” would re­place both the ex­ist­ing W-78 war­head cur­rently fit­ted on Air Force ground-based mis­siles, as well as the W-88 war­head cur­rently used on Navy sub­mar­ine-based mis­siles.       

The pro­pos­al promp­ted con­cerns from law­makers on both sides of the aisle, in part due to a dra­mat­ic pro­jec­ted cost surge start­ing around the year 2018, and con­tinu­ing through 2024 and per­haps bey­ond. At its peak in the early 2020s, this spend­ing “bubble” would reach a level of nearly $3 bil­lion per year — more than double what the United States cur­rently spends on war­head life-ex­ten­sion pro­grams.

The dra­mat­ic in­crease largely would have been the res­ult of the num­ber of war­head-re­fur­bish­ment pro­jects go­ing on sim­ul­tan­eously dur­ing that time peri­od. But by slid­ing the IW-1 pro­ject back by five years as part of a re­vised plan the ad­min­is­tra­tion is­sued with its fisc­al 2015 budget re­quest this year, the up­tick in pro­jec­ted spend­ing between now and the early 2020s is far less steep.

It re­mains to be seen, however, wheth­er a sim­il­ar spend­ing surge would oc­cur later in the 2020s or early 2030s, notes Steph­en Young, a seni­or ana­lyst with the Uni­on of Con­cerned Sci­ent­ists.

“The bot­tom line is that they cer­tainly have made the next 10 years ap­pear to be far more sus­tain­able, but “¦ it cer­tainly looks that when they have [mul­tiple] war­heads in pro­duc­tion, they’ll have a bump in [spend­ing] again,” said Young.

As an op­pon­ent of the plan to build in­ter­op­er­able war­heads, Young said he has con­cerns that ex­tend bey­ond cost alone. On the tech­nic­al side, he wor­ries that the cre­ation of in­ter­op­er­able war­heads could cre­ate safety risks.

One of the Na­tion­al Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion’s goals is for the IW-1 war­head to use in­sens­it­ive high ex­plos­ives, which are be­lieved to be safer than con­ven­tion­al high ex­plos­ives used for set­ting off a nuc­le­ar-war­head im­plo­sion, Young notes. In or­der to do this, of­fi­cials will have to mix and match parts from the two ex­ist­ing weapons the IW-1 is meant to re­place, a move that he fears could cre­ate its own un­fore­see­able risks.

Along with some oth­er nuc­le­ar watch­dogs, Young would prefer that the ad­min­is­tra­tion stick with known quant­it­ies, and simply re­fur­bish the ex­ist­ing W-78 and W-88 war­heads as they are.

The ad­min­is­tra­tion, however, ar­gues that the plan to trans­ition to in­ter­op­er­able war­heads fits with­in its goal of re­du­cing the over­all num­ber of war­heads in the U.S. ar­sen­al as it works to­ward com­ply­ing with the New START arms-con­trol deal with Rus­sia.

“One of the main reas­ons that we are mov­ing to in­ter­op­er­able war­heads is so that we can ac­tu­ally re­duce the size of the hedge,” Act­ing NNSA Ad­min­is­trat­or Bruce Held said last week, re­fer­ring to ex­tra war­heads the United States holds in re­serve.

“The [in­ter­op­er­able war­head] strategy al­lows us to main­tain a safe, se­cure and re­li­able de­terrent based on a smal­ler” ar­sen­al, said Held, speak­ing at a hear­ing of the House Armed Ser­vices Sub­com­mit­tee on Stra­tegic Forces.

Dur­ing a sep­ar­ate hear­ing be­fore the Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Sub­com­mit­tee on Stra­tegic Forces last week, Held warned that ad­di­tion­al budget cuts in fu­ture years would “break” the cur­rent life-ex­ten­sion strategy and “put the na­tion in a very dif­fi­cult po­s­i­tion,” with “im­plic­a­tions for our nuc­le­ar de­terrent and “¦ our abil­ity to re­duce the size of the stock­pile.”

Pre­vi­ously, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion had strongly op­posed cuts to the in­ter­op­er­able pro­gram that Con­gress im­ple­men­ted for fisc­al 2014, along with a re­quire­ment that it more thor­oughly study al­tern­at­ives to the strategy be­fore fully com­mit­ting to the plan. It was able to sal­vage the over­all strategy — which calls for the de­vel­op­ment of a total of three in­ter­op­er­able war­heads — by push­ing the IW-1 plan back by five years, however.

Now, the re­vised stock­pile stew­ard­ship and man­age­ment plan is “really pretty rock bot­tom” and can no longer sur­vive ad­di­tion­al cuts, Held said.

In par­tic­u­lar, he raised con­cerns about the safety of aging fa­cil­it­ies where weapons work is com­pleted and po­ten­tial delays to plans to re­place them.

“An area of in­creas­ing con­cern for me is nuc­le­ar safety,” Held said. “Our in­fra­struc­ture for en­riched urani­um in Oak Ridge [Ten­ness­ee] is 70 years old — we can’t wait un­til the year 2038 to get new fa­cil­it­ies.”

Young and oth­er crit­ics have ar­gued, however, that the United States might be able to save money — and thus give it­self some more abil­ity to cope with fu­ture budget con­straints — if it simply re­fur­bished the ex­ist­ing war­heads.

One Cap­it­ol Hill aide noted last June that while NNSA es­tim­ates put the cost of the IW-1 pro­ject at roughly $14 bil­lion over 10 years, re­fur­bish­ment of the Navy’s oth­er nuc­le­ar war­head, the W-76, is cost­ing “only about $3 or $4 bil­lion.”

In ad­di­tion, Young says he isn’t con­vinced the in­ter­op­er­able war­head strategy would ne­ces­sar­ily lead to over­all stock­pile re­duc­tions. In any case, he ar­gues, any such cuts would be a long way off.

Young points to lan­guage in the fisc­al 2014 stock­pile stew­ard­ship and man­age­ment plan that ori­gin­ally rolled out the in­ter­op­er­able war­head strategy. It says that “when fully im­ple­men­ted” the strategy will of­fer “the po­ten­tial to con­sider” re­duc­tions to the stock­pile hedge. The re­vised fisc­al 2015 ver­sion of the doc­u­ment does not of­fer any ad­di­tion­al in­sight re­gard­ing the tim­ing of po­ten­tial re­duc­tions, Young said.

“That would be roughly in the 2045 timeline be­fore they fin­ish” build­ing all the in­ter­op­er­able war­heads, he said. “So we’re talk­ing about maybe in 30 years we can think about cut­ting the hedge. “¦ It’s just ri­dicu­lous.”

In a re­sponse provided to Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire by NNSA Deputy Press Sec­ret­ary Der­rick Robin­son, the agency ac­know­ledged that it can’t “guar­an­tee” the re­duc­tion in the hedge.

“What we can do is ex­ecute, in co­ordin­a­tion with the [Nuc­le­ar Weapons Coun­cil], the 3+2 strategy for stock­pile mod­ern­iz­a­tion which will provide great­er flex­ib­il­ity in hedging the act­ive stock­pile,” the agency says.  Un­der the strategy, the fu­ture U.S. ar­sen­al would com­prise three war­head designs, one of which would be in­ter­op­er­able on bal­list­ic mis­siles, an­oth­er on bombs and the third on cruise mis­siles.

Any de­cision to move for­ward with a hedge re­duc­tion “would be made by the pres­id­ent in con­sulta­tion with” the De­fense and En­ergy de­part­ments “and any oth­er ap­pro­pri­ate gov­ern­ment agency,” ac­cord­ing to the NNSA state­ment.

While crit­ics ar­gue the United States might be able to mod­ern­ize its nuc­le­ar forces with less money, some Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress con­tin­ue to ar­gue the ad­min­is­tra­tion is not re­quest­ing enough funds for the pro­ject.

Sen­at­or Dav­id Vit­ter (R-La.) and oth­ers dur­ing budget hear­ings last week hauled out over­sized charts de­pict­ing how the United States has so far spent less per year on nuc­le­ar-weapons mod­ern­iz­a­tion than the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion pro­jec­ted dur­ing polit­ic­al ne­go­ti­ations over New START rat­i­fic­a­tion in 2010.

Not all pro-nuc­le­ar ad­voc­ates are ne­ces­sar­ily wed­ded to the in­ter­op­er­able strategy, though.

Sher­man Mc­Corkle, lead­er of the new Stra­tegic De­terrent Co­ali­tion that aims to con­vince Amer­ic­ans of the im­port­ance of main­tain­ing the stock­pile at a time of fisc­al dif­fi­culty, told GSN in Feb­ru­ary that the group is not op­posed to study­ing the in­ter­op­er­able strategy in more de­tail be­fore de­cid­ing wheth­er to com­mit to the plan.

“That de­cision is not yet ripe,” Mc­Corkle said.

What We're Following See More »
PROCEDURES NOT FOLLOWED
Trump Not on Ballot in Minnesota
2 days ago
THE LATEST
MOB RULE?
Trump on Immigration: ‘I Don’t Know, You Tell Me’
3 days ago
THE LATEST

Perhaps Donald Trump can take a plebiscite to solve this whole messy immigration thing. At a Fox News town hall with Sean Hannity last night, Trump essentially admitted he's "stumped," turning to the audience and asking: “Can we go through a process or do you think they have to get out? Tell me, I mean, I don’t know, you tell me.”

Source:
BIG CHANGE FROM WHEN HE SELF-FINANCED
Trump Enriching His Businesses with Donor Money
4 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Donald Trump "nearly quintupled the monthly rent his presidential campaign pays for its headquarters at Trump Tower to $169,758 in July, when he was raising funds from donors, compared with March, when he was self-funding his campaign." A campaign spokesman "said the increased office space was needed to accommodate an anticipated increase in employees," but the campaign's paid staff has actually dipped by about 25 since March. The campaign has also paid his golf courses and restaurants about $260,000 since mid-May.

Source:
QUESTIONS OVER IMMIGRATION POLICY
Trump Cancels Rallies
5 days ago
THE LATEST

Donald Trump probably isn't taking seriously John Oliver's suggestion that he quit the race. But he has canceled or rescheduled rallies amid questions over his stance on immigration. Trump rescheduled a speech on the topic that he was set to give later this week. Plus, he's also nixed planned rallies in Oregon and Las Vegas this month.

Source:
‘STRATEGY AND MESSAGING’
Sean Hannity Is Also Advising Trump
5 days ago
THE LATEST

Donald Trump's Fox News brain trust keeps growing. After it was revealed that former Fox chief Roger Ailes is informally advising Trump on debate preparation, host Sean Hannity admitted over the weekend that he's also advising Trump on "strategy and messaging." He told the New York Times: “I’m not hiding the fact that I want Donald Trump to be the next president of the United States. I never claimed to be a journalist.”

Source:
×