[Peace-discuss] Pentagon Memo Raises Possibility of Nuclear Testing

[Margaret E. Kosal]

That which was leaked out of the December 2000 Nuclear Posture Review is 
coming to bare ... old nukes re-made as "kinder, gentler bunker" busters 
(there is a very good reason underground nuclear testing was conducting 
1000's of feet underground; no gravity bomb can impact far enough to 
contain radioactive fall-out), re-invigorating training of a new generation 
of nuclear testing & testers (nevermind that the nuclear scientists, who 
are in the government's pocket, state there is no need for new tests). mek

 From Arms Control Today, December 2002 issue
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_12/nuctesting_dec02.asp

Pentagon Memo Raises Possibility of Nuclear Testing
Christine Kucia
A memorandum from a high-level Pentagon official recommending that the 
United States consider a low-yield nuclear testing program to help maintain 
the nuclear weapons stockpile surfaced November 15, just two days after 
Congress delayed an attempt to reduce the time required to prepare a 
nuclear test.

Edward Aldridge, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and 
logistics, sent the memorandum October 21 to members of the Nuclear Weapons 
Council, a consultative body he chairs that is made up of officials from 
the Departments of Defense and Energy. In the letter, which was obtained by 
the Arms Control Association and made public in mid-November, he expressed 
concern about the ability of the Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensure a 
high level of safety and performance of the current nuclear arsenal. "New 
findings suggest that we may previously have been overconfident," Aldridge 
wrote. The Stockpile Stewardship Program combines subcritical testing with 
computer modeling based on data from previous nuclear weapons tests to 
verify the safety and reliability of the nuclear arsenal.

Among the suggestions offered by Aldridge for assessing the arsenal's 
safety and reliability is "for the laboratories to readdress the value of a 
low yield testing program." Aldridge pointed out the difficulty of fully 
understanding the stockpile's safety without testing and asked, "How might 
such a program [of low-yield nuclear testing] increase confidence now?"

Deliberations over the resumption of nuclear testing to maintain the U.S. 
nuclear stockpile have bubbled beneath the surface of Bush administration 
policy since January 2001, when the White House indicated that it would not 
ask the Senate to reconsider ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Treaty. The administration also hinted at nuclear testing resumption in its 
January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, a leaked version of which stated, 
"While the United States is making every effort to maintain the stockpile 
without additional testing, this may not be possible for the indefinite 
future." Among other things, the review, as well as a later study by the 
National Nuclear Security Administration, expressed concern that the United 
States is losing important expertise as the number of laboratory personnel 
with nuclear testing experience dwindles.

Other experts within the U.S. government deny the need for resumed testing. 
Bruce Goodwin, associate director for defense and nuclear technologies at 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said, "I don't know of any reason 
why we can't" maintain the stockpile without testing, according to a 
November 15 San Jose Mercury News article. Energy Department spokesman 
Bryan Wilkes said November 22 that there are "no new movements or talk" in 
the agency about resuming testing, adding, "We see no need to deviate from 
the Stockpile Stewardship Program right now." In addition, a July 2002 
report by the National Academy of Sciences noted, "Even in the absence of 
constraints on nuclear testing, no need was ever identified for a program 
that would periodically subject the stockpile weapons to nuclear tests."

Aldridge's memorandum was made public just two days after Congress finished 
the fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Act, passed by the House of 
Representatives November 12 and the Senate a day later. In the bill, 
Congress requests a report that will outline plans and costs calculations 
for nuclear testing readiness periods of 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The bill 
also calls for a recommendation from the secretaries of energy and defense 
on the "optimal readiness posture."

The United States conducted its last nuclear test in 1992, and since 1993 
the Energy Department has been required to be able to resume testing within 
24-36 months. Whereas in previous years Congress simply authorized funds to 
maintain readiness without discussion, this year House Republicans 
unsuccessfully pushed for the adoption of a one-year readiness requirement. 
The Senate refused to reopen the issue of test readiness to deliberation. 
Conference committee members compromised by requesting the study, which 
will postpone congressional debate on whether to shorten the test readiness 
period.

Calling the House proposal for a one-year readiness posture "unnecessarily 
aggressive," Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) described the result as 
an important compromise November 18. Asking the Energy Department to 
evaluate all of the possible options and propose a posture recommendation 
was an important achievement, according to Tauscher, who said, "I don't 
believe Congress should arbitrarily mandate a testing posture that would 
have significant national security consequences."