Like it or not, scientists and military officials are planning big changes to the US nuclear weapons program in the next few decades. A discussion about that future today had some big-name weapons experts--including General James Cartwright, commander of the United States Strategic Command (or USSTRATCOM), one of nine US agencies responsible for the control of our nuclear warheads. Also present was Dr. John Harvey of the National Nuclear Security Administration and Bruce Tarter, former director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
The three were fairly consistent in comparing the current US nuclear warhead arsenal to an old Mustang: It's pretty old and manufactured at a time when safety standards were vastly different (it doesn't even have seatbelts!), it never leaves your garage, you tinker with it on a regular basis and do everything you can to make sure it's ready when somebody needs to get to the hospital at a moment's notice. Oh, and by the way, this particular Mustang was built at a time when nobody really understood what a Mustang was or how to build one right. Cute...well, not really.
According to these guys (and I attribute this to all of them, as there must have been a pow-wow before the meeting where everyone agreed to agree), the old Mustang plan is getting a little dusty.
In order to understand their goals for the future, I offer you some extremely truncated background info on what our nuclear weapons policy has been since the early nineties: No new warheads, meaning no major upgrades to construction facilities and constant upkeep on warheads that were created before the end of the cold war. At the same time, there has been an emphasis on research and development of new warhead technologies...but absolutely no testing.
So, you can see the problem. Our warheads are old but the military still deems nukes useful for scaring other countries. According to former LLL director Tarter, "[Our] post cold war nuclear weapons program is in disarray...We don't know how the damn things are going to age in the long term. A serious concern is that multiple repairs and long aging reduces confidence--and not all weapons are born equal."
Tarter and a group of scientists with warhead R&D experience formed a panel six months ago to explore the possibility of modernizing our program. The solution as they see it will be the creation of new warheads (or RRWs--reliable replacement warheads). After a contest for new designs, the schematics for the first US-built nuclear warhead in years is about to be selected any minute.
According to their vision, which they have dubbed Complex 2030, the first RRW will roll off the assembly line in 2012. But that's problematic, Tarter says, because it "will require a significant upgrade to facilities while still performing maintenance [on the old warheads]."
And that's not all. An audience member noted that the latest generation of scientists weren't in the labs when warheads were actually being tested--don't forget, they still have a strict policy of not testing. According to the NNSA's Dr. Harvey, "Proceeding now we can take advantage of those scientists who were around when we were testing. If we wait five years they'll be retired or dead."
Still, Tarter and his committee believe the plan is feasible (if it gets bipartisan support for the next 25 years...which is how long it will take to cycle out our old warheads for shiny new ones). The dream scenario, he says, is this: Lots of new warheads to consolidate the number necessary (we need more then we would like now because no one is sure how reliable the old ones are). And "sweet modern facilities" to build more environmentally responsible weapons with shelf-lives that we can predict.
Once the facilities are up-to-date they hope to crank out 100 new warheads every year. It seems like a lot, but in the cold war that number was closer to 1,000.
It's a lofty plan--not to mention the ethical, political, and policy questions it evokes--but modernization seems to be the word of the day. Well, that or Mustang.
