Scientists raise concerns about $60 billion nuclear weapons plan

Oct 22, 2013 by Ralph Vartabedian

The Energy Department's plan to modernize its aging nuclear weapons complex and update the seven hydrogen bomb designs in the nation's arsenal would require massive investments at a time of severe budget pressure.

As a result, the plan is getting a tough assessment by outside groups, who say congressional Republicans and Democrats are not fully on board with what the Obama administration has proposed over the last year: a $60 billion effort that would transform industrial arms sites across the nation and fundamentally reconfigure existing weapon designs.

A this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists raises new objections that the plan would require construction of unnecessary facilities and introduce untested combinations of parts inside the bombs - which could erode confidence in their reliability and safety.

At the same time, the report confirmed long-standing concerns cited by experts that not enough routine testing and surveillance of the nation's stockpile is being conducted at bomb plants to assure full reliability of the weapons. In recent years, funding for surveillance has increased and is scheduled to grow.

The U.S. stopped making nuclear weapons in 1990, meaning that all stockpiles are at least 23 years old and in many cases 30 or 40 years old. The Energy Department has proposed and withdrawn a number of plans to deal with the aging stockpiles.

After those earlier plans were criticized, the Nuclear Weapons Council, a high-level board of officials from the Energy and Defense departments, proposed a 25-year plan to mix old and newly manufactured parts from the seven existing weapons designs into five new packages at a cost of $60 billion.

The new report from the scientists group faulted that plan, because it would combine plutonium triggers from one type of weapon with thermonuclear components from other types. That kind of combination was never tested by detonation before the end of full-scale underground tests in the early 1990s.

Among the authors of the report was Philip Coyle, who at one time ran the nation's nuclear testing program in Nevada, later was deputy director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and until 2011 served as associate director for national security and international affairs in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Coyle said the current plan essentially violates the Obama administration's pledge against developing new nuclear weapons.

"It sends the wrong message to the rest of the world," he said.

The Energy Department and its National Nuclear Security Administration, which runs the weapons complex, did not respond to Times requests for comment on the report.

Instead of developing new designs that could not be tested under current international treaties, the Obama administration should continue to refurbish existing designs at a much lower cost, said physicist Lisbeth Gronlund, a co-author of the report.

"Both parties are concerned about the cost of these things," she said.

The report also called on the Energy Department to get rid of its surplus stocks of plutonium and uranium, in part by blending the material for use as commercial nuclear reactor fuel. The Energy Department has enough material for 13,000 new nuclear bombs, according to the report.

The Obama plan would include a number of costly new production facilities, including the Uranium Processing Facility, a massive plant at the Y-12 Security Complex in Tennessee slated to manufacture new thermonuclear secondaries for bombs. The cost of that facility has jumped from $600 million to $7 billion, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists report, and other estimates put the cost as high as $11.6 billion.

Explore further: New report reviews science and engineering quality at national security laboratories

5 /5 (4 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

U. S. envisions a new generation of nuclear weapons

Mar 19, 2007

Almost 62 years after detonation of the first atomic bombs, the United States is considering controversial proposals to produce a new generation of nuclear weapons and revamp its nuclear weapons complex, according to an article ...

Study urges dual track US nuclear weapons policy

Dec 10, 2008

The United States must re-establish its global leadership in nuclear arms control while continuing to update its nuclear arsenal as necessary, but it should not add any new nuclear capabilities in the process, a joint working ...

Russian warhead fallout keeps America warm

Oct 09, 2013

Uranium fuel from 20,000 disarmed Russian warheads are generating about half of US nuclear power in a spinoff from a landmark disarmament accord, a top US official said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Obama launches measures to support solar energy in US

Apr 17, 2014

The White House Thursday announced a series of measures aimed at increasing solar energy production in the United States, particularly by encouraging the installation of solar panels in public spaces.

Tailored approach key to cookstove uptake

Apr 17, 2014

Worldwide, programs aiming to give safe, efficient cooking stoves to people in developing countries haven't had complete success—and local research has looked into why.

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jeddy_Mctedder
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2013
how about they spend 60 billion placing all high level waste sitting in spent fuel pools in dry casks or vitrifying them ON SITE. with a mobile casking or mobile vitrification unit that can travel from plant to plant.

for the spent fuel this would
1) secure from accidents waiting to happen
2) secure from being released catastrophically due to an attack in war or attack
3) prepare for being transported cheaply and easily to its long term storage destination
4) prepare for resale/reuse as fuel in a fast neutron breeding reactor offsite

this is far more important to NATIONAL DEFENSE than worrying about hydrogen bombs.

it is long past known that bigger bombs (hydrogen bombs) release far more of their energy straight into the atmosphere upwards ( and into space) than an equivalent megatonage distributed into smaller bombs spread out over a wider area.

smaller bombs (fission) delivered to a radius are far more destructive. hydrogen bombs are less effective tools of destruction_

More news stories

Ex-Apple chief plans mobile phone for India

Former Apple chief executive John Sculley, whose marketing skills helped bring the personal computer to desktops worldwide, says he plans to launch a mobile phone in India to exploit its still largely untapped ...

A homemade solar lamp for developing countries

(Phys.org) —The solar lamp developed by the start-up LEDsafari is a more effective, safer, and less expensive form of illumination than the traditional oil lamp currently used by more than one billion people ...

NASA's space station Robonaut finally getting legs

Robonaut, the first out-of-this-world humanoid, is finally getting its space legs. For three years, Robonaut has had to manage from the waist up. This new pair of legs means the experimental robot—now stuck ...