That calculation makes no sense,” said Hans Kristensen. “It is like saying that today’s stockpile of about 5,000 weapons requires a complex of nearly the same size and cost as when the stockpile had 8,000 warheads.
Washington (PRWEB) July 14, 2010
The Obama administration is planning to cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal by as much as 40 percent by 2021, but also wants to spend nearly $175 billion over the next twenty years to build new facilities and to maintain and modify thousands of weapons, according to sections of an administration plan made public today by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
The proposal, the "FY2011 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan," part of the Department of Energy's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget, was drafted by DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and presented to members of Congress in May.
"Nuclear weapons are now a liability, not an asset, so the plan to reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile is a step in the right direction.” said Lisbeth Gronlund, co-director of UCS’s Global Security Program.
The plan calls for the United States to reduce its nuclear arsenal 30 to 40 percent from today’s total of approximately 5,000 weapons. Reductions already underway will reduce the arsenal to 4,700 weapons by the end of 2012. According to the plan, “the future NNSA infrastructure will support total stockpiles up to a range of approximately 3,000 to 3,500 [warheads],” about twice the number of warheads the New START treaty permits to be deployed on strategic forces. (For more details, see “Plan Promises Nuclear Reductions, but Few Savings,” a fact sheet -http://www.fas.org/press/_docs/fact_sheet.html- prepared by FAS and UCS.)
“The 3,000 to 3,500 total warhead target is a ceiling,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. “Of course, the United States could reduce its arsenal to even lower levels through negotiated agreements with Russia and the other nuclear weapon states.”
The plan also includes cost estimates beyond what NNSA has previously released. It calls for the United States to spend nearly $175 billion (in then-year dollars) from 2010 to 2030 on new weapons production, testing and simulation facilities, and on modernizing and extending the life of the remaining weapons in the arsenal. That price tag does not include the cost of maintaining and operating nuclear weapons delivery systems, which are covered by the Department of Defense budget.
Given NNSA’s spotty record for meeting deadlines and budgets, experts at FAS and UCS predict that the costs are likely to be higher.
The two science groups also questioned some of NNSA’s key assumptions. For example, they questioned the need to maintain the capability to support 3,000 to 3,500 weapons, even if the number of weapons in the stockpile dropped below 1,000.
“Weapons expenditures will remain high because the plan calls for retaining a large, capable weapons complex independent of the size of the arsenal,” said Gronlund. “This could be a problem for deeper reductions that are needed since it would be possible for the United States to rapidly rebuild.”
“That calculation makes no sense,” said Kristensen. “It is like saying that today’s stockpile of about 5,000 weapons requires a complex of nearly the same size and cost as when the stockpile had 8,000 warheads. Given the size of the federal deficit, the Obama administration needs to think more clearly about how it spends the taxpayers’ money.”
Finally, the groups cautioned the Obama administration against against making extensive modifications to U.S. nuclear weapons in the future, at a time when the United States is seeking additional reductions with Russia and other nuclear weapon states and needs the support of non-nuclear countries to implement the administration’s nonproliferation agenda.
“Not only could extensive ‘improvements’ reduce the reliability of the warheads, they would send the wrong message when we are trying to get other countries to reduce their arsenals,” Gronlund said.
The FY2011 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan consists of five sections (three are unclassified):
- FY 2011 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan Summary (unclassified) (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/SSMP2011_summary.pdf)
- Annex A – FY 2011 Stockpile Stewardship Plan (unclassified) (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/SSMP2011_annexA.pdf)
- Annex B – FY 2011 Stockpile Management Plan (classified)
- Annex C – FY 2011 Science, Technology, and Engineering Report on Stockpile Stewardship Criteria and Assessment of Stockpile Stewardship Program (classified), and
- Annex D – FY 2011 Biennial Plan and Budget Assessment on the Modernization and Refurbishment of the Nuclear Security Complex (unclassified) (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/SSMP2011_annexD.pdf).
Please visit the SSP Blog to read more analysis by Hans Kristensen: http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?s=kristensen
To schedule an interview with Hans Kristensen, please contact Monica Amarelo at email email@example.com or call 202-454-4680.
The Federation of American Scientists (http://www.fas.org) was formed in 1945 by atomic scientists from the Manhattan Project. FAS addresses a broad spectrum of security issues in carrying out its mission to promote humanitarian uses of science and technology. For more information, go to the SSP Blog.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices in Berkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C. For more information, go to http://www.ucsusa.org.
Follow FAS on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/FAScientists
Follow FAS on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FAScientists.
- Experts available for interviews --
Read SSP Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/07/stockpileplan.php
# # #