Right now Congress is considering whether to fund the development of a new nuclear bomb called the "Reliable Replacement Warhead" (RRW). Many nuclear weapons experts share Peace Action’s view: new nuclear weapons are unnecessary and send a dangerous message to the rest of the world.
Former Senator Sam Nunn
"On the RRW itself, if Congress gives a green light to this program in our current world environment, I believe that this will be: Misunderstood by our allies; exploited by our adversaries; complicate our work to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons, including the essential steps I have outlined this morning; and make resolution of the Iran and North Korea challenges all the more difficult."
"I would not fund additional work on the RRW at this time."
Testimony before House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, 3/28/07
Read the full testimony here.(PDF).
William Perry, former Secretary of Defense
"On balance, I believe that we could defer action for many years on an RRW program, and I have no doubt that this would put us in a stronger position to lead the international community in the continuing battle against nuclear proliferation, which threatens us all."
Testimony before House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, 3/28/07
Dr.
Raymond Jeanloz, chair, Nat'l Academy of Science's Int'l Security
and Arms Control Committee
"The remarkable finding is that key materials making up the nuclear explosive package are far more stable and predictable than anyone would have anticipated. Recent developments reinforce the conclusion that plutonium pits and the U.S. stockpile are stable over periods of at least 50 to 60 years and probably much, much longer...The finding suggests there should be no great urgency to proceed with the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.
From "Research Suggests Warhead Plutonium Pits Last Longer" Global Security Newswire 3/2/06
Robert
Gallucci, Former Assistant Secretary of State, Current Dean of the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University
"'It’s passing strange…we would propose to improve confidence in the stockpile' by replacing well-tested warheads with warheads that haven't been tested.
If the U.S. military later determines that testing is necessary, 'you would have the worst of worlds' -- uncertain warheads, abrogation of the test-ban treaty and serious damage to U.S. efforts to convince other nations that nuclear weapons aren’t necessary."
From "U.S. Congress, Nuke Builders Debate Proposed Warhead" Defense News 3/26/07
“Now, if such a new nuclear warhead were to be introduced to replace our existing, nuclear warheads, without first testing it, a serious question arises about why we would think it more reliable than the well-tested warheads to be retired.”
From Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 3/21/07
Bob
Peurifoy, retired Sandia National Laboritories weapons expert
"When you do something new…if you look at automobiles, flashlight batteries, I don't care, you'll find that statistically, you make mistakes that you only discover after you put something into inventory. I go with the tried and true. I go with the stockpile that has been surveilled and maintained and when necessary, fixed, and that's what we have today."
From "There's No Shakedown Cruise for New Nukes" Contra Costa Times 3/26/07
Representative
Peter Visclosky (D-IN), Chairman of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
“To date, there has been no clear, coherent
national security policy coming out of the Administration
that defines the requirement for the RRW. In fact, much of
the RRW process has a make-it-up-as-you-go-along character
to it. At a minimum, before I support a decision to invest
hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new nuclear weapon,
I am going to have to see a policy statement from the Administration
that explains the national security imperative for the RRW.
We are not going to begin building more nuclear bombs without
a serious and open national debate on that policy question.”
From Statement on Department
of Energy's Lead Lab Selection for the RRW 3/ 2/2007
Representative
David Hobson (R-OH), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
“As we look at these ambitious, long-term initiatives,
I’m struck by the absence of clear requirements and
achievable milestones that’ll get us to the desired
destination. It’s been said if you don’t know
where you’re going, then any road will get you there.
Mr. D’Agostino, such an aimless vision for NNSA’s
nuclear weapons activities will not be tolerated, I don’t
believe, by this subcommittee.”
From Opening statement
before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development 3/29/2007
Sidney
Drell, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Professor
Emeritus of the Linear Accelerator Center at Stanford University
“As to the transformation of the weapons with the stated
goal to increase confidence in their long term reliability,
safety, and use control, we still face a daunting technical
challenge to determine whether new designs to meet those ambitious
goals can be certified and deployed without underground explosive
testing.”
From Testimony before
the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
3/21/2007
Robert
G. Gard, Jr., Lt. General (USA, Ret.), Senior Military Fellow,
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
“Undertaking such a project would communicate to the
rest of the world that even the sole conventional military
superpower needs new and improved nuclear weapons for its
security, thereby encouraging other nations to acquire them
to the detriment of international security. What is required
instead is to take actions to diminish the role and utility
of nuclear weapons in our nation’s security and comply
with our nation’s obligation to make a good faith effort
to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.”
From Statement at a press
conference at the National Press Club 12/14/2006
Richard
Garwin, IBM Fellow Emeritus at the Thomas J. Watson Research
Center
“The proposed reductions in stockpile numbers that are
supposed to be enabled by the deployment of the RRW could
more confidently be obtained with the legacy weapons and such
reductions need not wait for the advent and entry into the
stockpile of large numbers of RRW…U.S. national security
would almost surely be impaired if after RRW was deployed
it had to be tested. In a CTBT era this would be no thing
short of disastrous and would not only call forth nuclear
explosion tests by some of our rivals such as China and Russia,
but would largely destroy the era of restraint among those
countries choosing to remain without nuclear weapons.”
From Testimony before
the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development 3/292007
Bruce Tarter, former Director
of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
“What is true is I think there has not been an upturn
in the frequency of age-related findings that would create
a sense of dramatic urgency in the sense we need to do something
in the next year or two years or three years.”
From “There’s No Shakedown Cruise for New Nukes,” Contra Costa Times
3/26/2007
Frank
von Hippel, Professor of Public and International Affairs
at Princeton University
“The question really is whether this thing will work
[and] whether you can have confidence in an untested warhead.”
From “Scientists
boost Bush’s plan for nuclear arsenal,” Inside
Bay Area 11/27/ 2006
The quotes on this page were compiled with the help of Peace Action West and Council for a Livable World.
