Tactical nukes next up in arms-control agenda?

Social justice news
June 2002

Bishops call for Vatican III
Bishops to consider Charter to protect children
Frosted mini-nukes?
Maryland calls moratorium on death penalty
SEIU in landmark contract with Catholic Healthcare West
Tactical nukes next up in arms-control agenda?
U.S. bishops say refugee program in crisis
Voice of laity emerging

Tactical nukes next up in arms-control agenda?
Even as President Bush and Russian Premier Putin signed the "Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty" last month committing both nations to slash their strategic nuclear arsenals from 6,000 warheads to a maximum of 2,200, arms control analysts worried over a number of other pressing concerns related to nuclear weapons reduction and proliferation.

Though the new treaty, signed on May 24, begins one of the largest reductions in strategic nuclear weapons since the beginning of the Cold War, the new agreement does not address the large number of lower-yield "tactical" nuclear warheads that both sides maintain. Russia has not said how many of these weapons it has but estimates range from 4,000 to 15,000. The U.S. stockpile is classified, but a nongovernmental assessment puts the figure at 1,600.

The treaty's three pages include no timetable for the reduction of warheads, just a promise to have it all done by 2012—when it expires—and it has not mapped out a strategy for measuring compliance. Another drawback, according to arms control advocates, is that the treaty doesn't require any warheads to be dismantled or destroyed, meaning they will likely be stored for possible use in the future.

Arms control advocates worry that a major problem confronting the two one-time rivals, the safe disposal of nuclear fuel, is not addressed at all in the new treaty. Already reports of misplaced, lost, or stolen caches of enriched uranium from Soviet-era stockpiles raise the specte of nuclear extortion or terrorism in the future.

While the United States and Russia are moving to tighten the security of their nuclear arsenals, few safeguards exist for bomb-grade uranium and plutonium stored at the sites of hundreds of nuclear research reactors, not only in Russia but in 57 other countries around the globe, according to recent nuclear proliferation studies. A recent Harvard study identifies civilian-controlled research reactors—typically smaller reactors run by universities which often use a highly enriched form of uranium that can be used in bombs—as one of the world's gravest unaddressed proliferation risks.

"Insecure nuclear bomb material anywhere is a threat to everyone, everywhere," said a report by the Project on Managing the Atom, part of Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. "Yet, there are no binding international standards for how well these stockpiles should be secured."

Both the Harvard study and a separate report by the Federation of American Scientists call for rapidly phasing out the use of bomb-grade nuclear material at most of the estimated 300 research reactors around the world, replacing the fuels with uranium that cannot be used in weapons. The action is one of several steps that could be taken immediately to reduce the risk of "catastrophic terrorism," the reports say.

They also urge a dramatic acceleration of efforts to destroy or store tens of thousands of pounds of plutonium and uranium, the military legacy of the Cold War arms race, still scattered across Russia and other former Soviet republics.

The United States has poured billions of dollars into improving security at Russian facilities where 40 percent of Russia's nuclear weapons and fuels are kept. The programs also have helped guarantee paychecks for thousands of former Soviet weapons scientists at risk of being lured away by such would-be nuclear powers as Iran and Iraq. At the previous Bush-Putin summit, in Crawford, Texas, the two leaders called efforts to block terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction "our highest priority," yet spending on nuclear security since Sept. 11 has remained essentially flat.

And however welcome is this large-scale reduction in at least the accessibility of strategic nuclear warheads, the agreement has been reached at a time when the Bush administration has shown a renewed interest in nuclear arms testing and the development of a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons, so-called mini-nukes.

Next year's proposed $393.4 billion defense budget includes a Bush administration request for $15.5 million in new spending to develop the the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) or "bunker buster," a new, earth-penetrating nuclear weapon.

The RNEP would be designed to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets such as bunkers containing chemical and biological weapons.

Because of its lower yield and earth penetrating capability, the RNEP is considered to be a more "useable" nuclear weapon than large yield, "strategic" nuclear weapons. However, reports by scientists indicate that the RNEP is far from being a "clean" weapon. If detonated in an urban setting, 10,000 to 50,000 people would receive a fatal dose of radiation within the first 24 hrs. This does not take into account traumatic injuries arising from the extreme pressures of the blast or thermal injuries arising from the heat of the explosion. Nor does the casualty estimate consider the consequences of fires and the collapse of buildings from the seismic shock that the explosion would produce.

Moreover, proceeding with the production of RNEPs would significantly undermine the global non-proliferation regime because the obvious targets for these weapons are non-nuclear weapon states. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) prohibits the use of nuclear weapons against such states.

The Senate Armed Services Committee last month cut the "bunker buster" program from the budget. According to the American Friends Service Committee, members of the Senate committee blocked the funds because of growing uncertainty about the Bush administration's policy for the use of nuclear weapons. Members of Congress are, with increasing frequency, questioning the idea of developing "useable" nuclear weapons. The allocation could be returned as the bill is negotiated in Congress.—Kevin Clarke

For more information:
Background on the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator"
Closing the Gaps: Securing High Enriched Uranium in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
Federation of American Scientists on "bunker buster"
Project on Managing the Atom
Take action to oppose the development of "mini nukes"—from Friends Committee on National Legislation
Text of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty
U.S. nonproliferation programs—from Council for a Livable World

Back to page top