U.S. envisions makeover for nuclear arms / Proponents cite maintenance costs -- critics say weapons race could flare up
William J. Broad, New York Times
Published 4:00 am, Monday, February 7, 2005
Worried that the nation's aging nuclear arsenal is increasingly fragile, U.S. bombmakers have begun designing a new generation of nuclear arms meant to be sturdier and more reliable and to have longer lives, federal officials and private experts say. The officials say the program could help shrink the arsenal and the high cost of its maintenance. But critics say it could needlessly resuscitate the complex of factories and laboratories that make nuclear weapons and could possibly ignite a new arms race. "The existing stockpile is safe and reliable by all standards," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington. "So to design a new warhead that is even more robust is a redundant activity that could be a pretext for designing a weapon that has a new military mission." So far, the quiet effort involves only $9 million for warhead designers at the nation's three nuclear weapon laboratories, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia. Federal bomb experts at these heavily guarded labs are scrutinizing secret arms data gathered over a half century for clues about how to achieve the new reliability goals. The relatively small initial program, involving fewer than 100 people, is expected to grow and produce finished designs in the next five to 10 years, culminating, if approval is sought and won, in prototype warheads. Most important, officials say, the effort marks a fundamental shift in design philosophy. For decades, the bombmakers sought to use the highest technologies and most innovative methods. The resulting warheads were lightweight, very powerful and in some cases so small that a dozen could fit atop a slender missile. The U.S. style was distinctive. Most other nuclear powers, years behind the atomic curve and often lacking top skills and materials, settled for less. Their nuclear arms tended to be ponderous if dependable, more like Chevys than race cars. Now, U.S. designers are studying how to reverse course and make arms that are more robust, in some ways emulating their rivals in an effort to avoid the uncertainties and deteriorations of nuclear old age. Federal experts worry that critical parts of the arsenal, if ever needed, may fail. Originally, the roughly 10,000 warheads in the U.S. arsenal had an expected lifetime of about 15 years. The average age is now about 20 years, and some are much older. Experts say a costly federal program to assess and maintain their health cannot ultimately confirm their reliability because a global test ban forbids underground test detonations. In late November, Congress approved a small budget item that started the new design effort, known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. Federal officials say the designs eventually could help recast the nuclear arsenal with warheads that are more rugged and have much longer lifetimes. "It's important," said John Harvey, director of policy planning at the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the arsenal. He said the goal of the new program was to create arms that are not only inherently reliable but also easier to make and certify as potent. But arms control advocates said the program probably was unneeded and dangerous. They said that it could start a new arms race if it revived underground testing and that its invigoration of the nuclear complex might aid the design of warheads with new military capabilities, possibly making them more tempting to use in a war. P. Leonardo Mascheroni, a former Los Alamos scientist who is critical of the new program, said that it would not only require testing but also changes in delivery systems costing trillions of dollars because of its large, heavy warheads. Federal officials deny both assertions, saying the goal is to have new designs fit existing bombers and missiles. Mascheroni has proposed that federal designers make lighter, robust warheads and confirm their reliability with an innovative system of tiny nuclear blasts. That still would require a revision of the test ban treaty, he said, but it would save a great deal of money and avoid the political firestorm that probably would accompany any effort to resume full-scale testing. Most Popular