Download Locations:
Summary:
Most current U.S. nuclear warheads were built in the 1980s, and are being retained longer than was planned. Yet warheads deteriorate and must be maintained. The current approach monitors them for signs of aging. When problems are found, a Life Extension Program (LEP) rebuilds and replaces components. Modifying some critical components would require a nuclear test, but a nuclear test moratorium is in effect. Therefore, LEP rebuilds these components as closely as possible to original specifications. Using this approach, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy have certified stockpile safety and reliability for the past nine years without nuclear testing. In the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress provided $9 million to initiate the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. That program will study trading off features important in the Cold War, such as high yield and low weight, to gain features more valuable now, such as lower cost, greater ease of manufacture and certification, and increased long-term confidence in the stockpile. It plans to make these improvements by redesigning warheads without adding military capability, while LEP makes changes mainly to maintain existing weapons. Representative David Hobson, RRW's prime sponsor, views it as part of a comprehensive plan for the nuclear weapons enterprise that would also modernize the nuclear weapons complex, avoid new weapons and nuclear testing, and permit a reduction in non-deployed weapons. The FY2006 request is $9.4 million. RRW supporters assert LEP will become harder to sustain for the long term as small changes accumulate, making it harder to certify warhead reliability and safety and perhaps requiring nuclear testing. Supporters believe RRW will enable design of replacement components for existing warheads that will be easier to manufacture and certify without nuclear testing, and will permit the military to eliminate many non-deployed warheads it maintains, at high cost, to hedge against potential warhead or geopolitical problems. Skeptics believe LEP and related programs can maintain the stockpile indefinitely. They worry that RRW's changes may reduce confidence and make a return to testing more likely. They question cost savings; even if RRW could lower operations and maintenance cost, its investment cost would be high. They are concerned that RRW could be used to build new weapons that would require testing. They note that there are no military requirements for new weapons. At issue for Congress is which approach -- LEP, RRW, some combination, or something else -- will best maintain the nuclear stockpile indefinitely. RRW also bears on other issues of interest to Congress: new weapons development, nuclear testing, restructuring of the nuclear weapons complex, costs of nuclear programs, and nuclear nonproliferation. Both Houses passed energy and water appropriations bills (H.R. 2419) containing around $25 million for RRW, and the defense authorization bills as passed by the House (H.R. 1815) and reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee (S. 1042) contain the requested amount. Given congressional support, NNSA and others are beginning to implement RRW; a design competition for a warhead using the RRW approach is underway. This report also contains questions for Congress. It will be updated.
