In an effort to enhance weapons security in the United States,
the Energy Department announced plans Wednesday to relocate
plutonium from seven national laboratories, including two run by
the University of California, to one new site.
The relocation plans are part of a larger program to replace the
nation’s aging weapons, with a goal of building 125 new bombs
per year by 2022.
Due to the increasing cost of security after Sept. 11, 2001, the
National Nuclear Security Administration believes it will be costly
to protect plutonium at all seven sites. Experts in the Energy
Department estimate that it would cost about $25 billion to provide
security for the seven sites over the next two decades.
But given the tensions that have existed between the United
States and other countries over nuclear weapons policy, there has
been concern from some politicians and scientists that revamping
the nation’s weapons stockpile could further damage U.S.
relations with other countries.
The plan includes taking plutonium from, among others, two
UC-run laboratories: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los
Alamos National Laboratory, though the labs will continue to be
centers for nuclear research.
Plutonium stocks would be removed from Livermore by 2014 and
from the rest of the laboratories by 2022, and a new site would be
developed to defend research plutonium more efficiently.
The location of that site is has not yet been determined.
“By 2030, the vision I set forth is of a world where a
smaller, safer, more secure stockpile, with assured reliability
over the long term, is backed by an industrial and design
capability to respond to changing technical, geopolitical or
military needs,” Tom D’Agustino, NNSA deputy
administrator for defense programs, said at a hearing before the
House Armed Service Subcommittee on Strategic Forces,
Wednesday.
“It offers the best hope of achieving the
president’s vision of the smallest stockpile consistent with
our national security needs,” he said.
Though sites such as Livermore are currently using plutonium to
conduct weapons research, Livermore Spokesman David Schwoegler said
much of the material is unnecessary.
“Eighty percent of the plutonium we have on-site we
don’t need, and it’s been boxed and ready to ship
off-site for more than a decade,” he said.
But other lab officials have opposed the plan to remove the
plutonium, saying that, even though most of the plutonium may not
be currently in use, at least some is vital to their research.
Though the government adds new nuclear bombs to its stock every
15 years, some of the United States’ nuclear bombs date back
to the 1960s, Schwoegler said.
Some scientists have questioned whether new nuclear weaponry is
necessary because there are conflicting ideas over how quickly
nuclear bombs degrade.
But Schwoegler explained the need to revamp the nation’s
nuclear weapons, drawing a comparison between how a person would
treat an old car.
“What would happen if you parked a car 45 years ago, never
started it, left it out in the sun, and someone said tomorrow,
“˜You (have to get) in that car and start it, and everything
in it needs to work perfectly’? Are there parts like plastic
that would degrade? … Are there adhesives that suddenly no longer
would the glue stick? … Well a nuclear weapon is about a million
times more complex than a car,” Schwoegler said.
He also said replacing disposed weapons was essential to
national security and to achieving certain quotas named in treaties
the United States has signed.
Some have criticized the plan based on concern over what effect
the United States’ new plan will have on the international
community.
Matthew Baum, a political science professor, said a process like
this could cause anxiety in the international community, especially
among countries that already second-guess the Bush
administration’s political motives.
“We have eroded our credibility by several degrees in the
past few years. Nuclear development will hurt … our
diplomacy,” said Baum.
Baum also said if the only intention of nuclear redevelopment is
stronger national security, the process may still disturb other
countries.
“I see it being criticized as something that’s going
to look like the U.S. is flouting its (nuclear) non-proliferation
commitments,” Baum said.
With reports from Bruin wire services.