Correction: A focus article published on Jan. 7 titled “Tick, Tick, Boom” incorrectly identified the executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, D.C. as Jason Isaacs. In fact, his name is John Isaacs.
First in a two-part series exploring the history of the
university’s affiliation with nuclear technology laboratories.
Nuclear weapons have been the subject of controversy for
over 60 years since their invention in 1945 and subsequent role in World War
II, and the UC system has played a large role in that controversy. The first
at
current stockpile was developed in said labs with extensive research by
UC-affiliated scientists. The labs continue nuclear-weapon research to this
day.
The UC system managed Department of Energy weapons labs in
Berkeley, Livermore and Los Alamos since their inception until a series of
administrative mishaps in 2003 prompted Congress to require the lab contracts
for Livermore and Los Alamos be put up for bid. The university then formed Los
Alamos National Security, Limited Liability Corporation, with private
industrial partners Bechtel, BWX Technologies, and Washington Group
International. The university also formed Lawrence Livermore National Security,
LLC with the same three companies, adding Battelle as a partner and Texas
A&M University as an academic alliance. The Department of Energy selected
both companies, with LANS taking over in June 2006 and LLNS taking over in
October 2007. The UC system still directly manages the Berkeley lab.
Politics of a Nuclear Age
Congressmembers have become increasingly familiar with the
longstanding nuclear debate since the introduction of the Reliable Replacement
Warhead and its predecessor, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, or “bunker
buster” warhead. Congress cut all funding for the latter project, essentially
canceling it in October 2005. The RRW faces a similar situation after Congress
confirmed a $73.8-million funding cut in December 2007, leaving $15 million in
Navy funding and zero in National Nuclear Security Administration funding for
the project. The project may receive more funding depending on Congress’
reaction to a pending nuclear programs review by the NNSA, but the question is,
should it?
The RRW has currently entered the design definition and cost
analysis phase at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, after the lab won the
contract in a Department of Defense-hosted competition with Los Alamos National
Laboratory in March 2007.
The NNSA, a semi-autonomous agency established within the
Department of Energy in 2000, is charged with maintaining the current U.S.
nuclear stockpile through the Stockpile Stewardship Program and has introduced
the RRW as a long-term solution to stockpile maintenance. The “short-term”
solution currently in place is a subset of the SSP, the Life Extension Program,
which corrects problems and replaces components in deteriorating nuclear
warheads, most of which were built in the 1970s and 1980s. Congress has
observed a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992, so the goal of the LEP is
to rebuild the old warheads with components that resemble the ones being
replaced as much as possible. The stockpile has been deemed safe and reliable
for the past 11 years using this method.
The Fight Against Nuclear Development
However, the NNSA has raised concerns over the long-term
reliability of the LEP, and is seeking to develop the RRW warhead, which the
agency expects to be an improvement over the current stockpile in terms of
security, safety and reliability. Officials believe the RRW can be taken to the
production phase without nuclear testing.
“What some people may or may not know is nuclear weapons
don’t last forever,” said LLNL
Spokesperson David Schwoegler. “They either have to be repaired or replaced.
And right now, the repairs are becoming ever more costly as the weapons age and
the components become harder and harder to get … newer and safer is better and
it doesn’t cost any more than refurbishments.”
However, the RRW faces considerable opposition from
nonproliferation groups.
“There’s no evidence that weapons are declining in their
usefulness just because you replace the part,” said Jason Isaacs, executive
director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington,
D.C. “Our position is that the United States has many — too many — nuclear
weapons as it is. Those weapons can last many, many more years. There have been
recent National Academy of Science studies saying that the so-called ‘pit,’ the
center of the warhead, can last a long time.”
Schwoegler said that although the pit probably has a
lifespan of 80 to 100 years, other components such as plastics, adhesives,
electronics and boost gases have much shorter shelf lives.
“There are over 1,000 interdependent parts of a nuclear
weapon which must function flawlessly within a few trillionths of a second,” he
said. “And if any of the others degrade, the weapon doesn’t work.”
Non-proliferation groups maintain that the NNSA’s criticism
of the LEP is vague in its assertion that the program might, at some point in
the future, lead to reduced confidence in the stockpile. The protest groups
remain wary of the RRW being tested.
“It’s not clear that
the U.S. armed forces would ever accept this weapon without conducting nuclear
tests first,” Isaacs said. “We’re afraid that if we go ahead with this weapon,
we’ll break out of our ban on testing new nuclear weapons and conduct some
explosive tests.”
LLNL proposes to avoid nuclear testing by basing the RRW on
a previously tested model and using advanced computer simulations.
Schwoegler also cited several differences in today’s nuclear
development compared to the development of the old Cold War-era warheads as a
benefit to the RRW.
“Since we’re now operating under reduced stockpile size, and
in compliance with treaties, we don’t have to fit multiple warheads into a
single military vehicle, we only have to fit one,” he said. “You can have a lot
more safety, security and use control features.”
According to the NNSA fact sheet on the RRW, the safety and
use control features include “greatly reduced hazardous waste, reduced
quantities of nuclear material and modern security features added to render
[the weapon] useless in the wrong hands.”
Facing Heightened Scrutiny
Isaacs also pointed out the diplomatic hypocrisy he believes
the RRW would create, a position espoused by Congress when they cut funding for
the project in December.
“If we’re trying to tell other countries like North Korea
and Iran they can’t develop nuclear weapons, we should not be producing our
own,” he said.
Although the NNSA maintains that the RRW meets U.S.
nonproliferation commitments because it will allow for further stockpile
reductions, according to Isaacs, there has been no similar commitments made on
the part of the Pentagon, by the Department of Energy or by the White House.
Nonproliferation groups also point out that the RRW would
have “birth defects” that could require a larger stockpile, whereas most
defects have been eliminated from the current stockpile after long years of
testing.
Some nonproliferation groups, like the Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation, not only oppose the development of nuclear weapons, but also the
involvement of the UC system in said development.
UC Nuclear Free is a campaign run by the NAPF-sponsored
Coalition to Demilitarize the UC system. The UC Nuclear Free Web site claims
the university’s primary function as a management agency is to provide a
“smokescreen” of academic integrity. It states, “As a 1970 UC Academic Senate
committee put it, the UC essentially serves as a ‘benevolent absentee landlord’
with respect to LANL and LLNL: Its ‘management’ of the facilities creates an
illusion that the labs’ programs are being monitored, when, in reality, the UC
has absolutely no influence over these programs.”
According to Steve Stormoen, the Youth Outreach Initiative
Coordinator for NAPF, the goal of the Coalition to Demilitarize the UC is to
push the university to sever ties and end management of their nuclear weapons
labs Los Alamos and Livermore, which are responsible for the development of
every single nuclear weapon in the U.S. stockpile. The student coalition has
active members on six UC campuses, including UCSD, Stormoen said.
The coalition held a nine-day hunger strike in May 2007 that
culminated with a 100-person presence at the UC Board of Regents meeting that
month, as well as a cross-campus demonstration in November to protest the
university’s bid for the weapons labs. The student-led group also organized a
10-week class at UC Santa Cruz called “UC and the Bomb.”
“People responded really positively,” said one UC and the
Bomb class facilitator who asked not to be named. “I think honestly the first
step to … affecting change in a major way is educating the students and getting
more people involved. I think that effort has been going slowly, as things go,
but is successful. The coalition definitely has something to show for it.”
The Next Step for Protest Groups
The coalition’s next action is scheduled to be at the
January regents meeting, Stormoen said.
Isaacs’ nonproliferation group will also continue to oppose
the RRW in Washington, D.C.
“I suspect the administration will request funds once again
for the RRW in the new budget presented in about a month, so our duty is to
oppose that,” he said.
Congress’ options for FY2009 include allowing the RRW
project to proceed to the next phase with funding, pausing the project, slowing
it down or canceling it completely. Congress has yet to make a final decision
on the fate of the warhead development.
