[ RadSafe ] Getting around issues of nuclear weapon development

[John Jacobus]

I received this through another list server.

----------------------------
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:27 PM
Subject: FYI #78: Update on RNEP Weapon

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science
Policy News Number 78: May 26, 2005

House Armed Services Committee Takes New Approach to
Bunker Buster

The House Armed Services Committee has taken a
different approach this year to the controversial
program that could lead to the development of a Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) or "bunker buster." 
Following last's year decision by Congress to provide
no funding for RNEP (see
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/154.html), the Armed
Services Committee this year authorized a program that
removes the nuclear component from the study of the
earth penetrator.  Last night, the House passed this
bill by a vote of 390-89 and sent it on to the Senate.

The committee's report, House Report 109-089,
accompanies H.R. 1815, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
Sections of this massive report detail the committee's
approach to RNEP, selections from which are below. 
Also below are Additional Views from the committee's
Democrats.  Taken together, along with the report
language which accompanied the FY 2006 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Bill (see
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/073.html), the strategy
can be discerned of both the supporters and the
opponents of this weapon.
_______________

The Armed Services Committee report shifts the
proposed RNEP study from the Department of Energy
(which performs nuclear weapons research for DOD) to
the Department of Defense with the following language
under the section entitled "National  Nuclear Security
Administration":

"Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator

"The budget request contained $4.0 million for the
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) study.

"The committee understands that the Commander, United
States Strategic Command has stated that the results
from the sled test conducted under this program have
applicability to various types of penetrators that may
be options for use against Hard and Deeply Buried
Targets (HDBTs). Based on the applicability of the
sled test results to various options for HDBT defeat,
the committee believes that this study is more
appropriately conducted under a program element within
the Department of Defense.

"The committee recommends no funding for the RNEP
study under the Department of Energy, but instead
authorizes a related study effort within the
Department of Defense elsewhere in this Act."
_______________

The following language appears in the section entitled
"Air Force Research, Development, Test and Evaluation"
under "Items of Special
Interest":

"Penetrator study

"The committee understands that Hard and Deeply Buried
Targets (HDBTs) pose a threat to national security and
that currently, the Department of Defense does not
have the capability to hold many of these targets at
risk. The committee further understands that the
Commander, United States Strategic Command has a need
to conduct sled tests that would evaluate the
feasibility of various options for penetrator weapons
that could be used against HDBTs.

"The committee authorizes $4.0 million in PE 64327F
for a penetrator test that would evaluate the
feasibility of various options for different types of
penetrators that could hold HDBTs at risk. The
committee intends that this study be completed by the
end of fiscal year 2006. Should additional funds above
the $4.0 million be required for this study, the
Secretary of Defense should submit a reprogramming
request to the congressional defense committees."
_______________

Traditionally, committee reports include sections that
outline Members views that may not be reflected in the
main body of the report.  Known as "Additional Views,"
the Armed Services Committee report includes language
from the committee's Democrats on RNEP.
These views were signed by Ranking Member Ike Skelton
(D-MO) and 22 of his Democratic colleagues.

"Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator

"[T]he committee Democrats appreciate the fact that
the majority took the 'Nuclear' portion out of the
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator or 'RNEP' program.
Nonetheless, we are concerned that the committee
report language is written vaguely enough that
conventional testing of penetration weapons could be
used as a proxy to inform nuclear applications as
well.

"Committee Democrats recognize the increasing
proliferation of hard and deeply buried targets
(HDBTs) and strongly support efforts to hold these
facilities at risk and, if necessary, to defeat them
militarily. However, we believe that conventional
means of holding HDBTs at risk are inherently more
credible than nuclear options and also hold greater
promise of military utility if used. Therefore, we
believe the nation's security interests are best
served by focusing our limited resources on
conventional options.

"The committee report as it currently stands supports
a sled test that can 'evaluate the feasibility of
various options for different types of penetrators.' 
This language could be construed to allow the sled
test to inform whether a nuclear payload could be used
in high-speed penetration of hard geologies. Moving
the RNEP sled test out of the Department of Energy
budget and into the Air Force budget strongly
indicates the committee's preference for conventional
payload penetration testing, but we believe the
Congress should go even further. This sled test should
be conducted in a manner that only informs
conventional payloads, and if this is not technically
feasible, there should be no further work in designing
modified or new nuclear weapon designs based on the
sled test data. We will strive to include this
language in conference with the Senate.

"H.R. 1815 as currently written also includes $4.5
million to evaluate how to integrate a conceptual
nuclear 'bunker buster' onto the B-2 bomber. We
believe it is premature to begin integration
engineering efforts for a weapon that should never be
designed and, at a minimum, is years away from being
designed. The committee's decision to delete RNEP
funding from the Department of Energy request and
re-orient the nature of the sled test to conventional
penetrating weapons further undermines the rationale
for this request. In order to maintain comity within
the committee, we did not offer formal amendments to
H.R. 1815 to delete this funding. We plan to work with
our colleagues, however, during the remainder of the
legislative process to find a better use of this $4.5
million."

"Committee Democrats believe that the pursuit of a
tactical nuclear RNEP impedes the nation's
non-proliferation goals and undermines the security of
the United States by increasing the appeal of nuclear
weapons. It reduces the ability of our nation to build
a global consensus against the development or
potential use of nuclear weapons by our enemies or
aspiring nuclear powers. It also undercuts our ability
to orchestrate collective action against rogue nations
or terrorists seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

"The timing of the Administration's request for funds
for the RNEP is particularly sensitive given the
current review of and efforts to strengthen the
Non-Proliferation Treaty. The committee should send a
clear signal that it in no way supports or approves an
earth-penetrating nuclear warhead. While we are
pleased to note that H.R 1815 moves in this direction,
we will strive for further changes in this direction
during the House-Senate conference on this bill."

###############
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi at aip.org    http://www.aip.org/gov
(301) 209-3094
##END##########

+++++++++++++++++++
"Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought."
Hugh Blair, 1783

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com