Crs Report for Congress Received through the Crs Web Nuclear Weapons : The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program Updated May 26, 2005

By Medalia, Jonathan

Book Id: WPLBN0000195843
Format Type: PDF eBook
File Size: 0.2 MB
Reproduction Date: 2008

Title:	Crs Report for Congress Received through the Crs Web Nuclear Weapons : The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program Updated May 26, 2005
Author:	Medalia, Jonathan
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Government publications, Legislation., Government Printing Office (U.S.)
Collections:	Government Library Collection
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	Government Printing Office


Citation APA MLA Chicago Medalia, J. (n.d.). Crs Report for Congress Received through the Crs Web Nuclear Weapons : The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program Updated May 26, 2005. Retrieved from http://gutenberg.us/

Excerpt
Summary: Most current U.S. nuclear warheads were built in the 1980s, and are being retained longer than was planned. Yet warheads deteriorate with age, and must be maintained. The current approach monitors them for signs of aging. When problems are found, a Life Extension Program (LEP) rebuilds components. While some can be made to new specifications, a nuclear test moratorium bars that approach for critical components that would require a nuclear test. Instead, LEP rebuilds them 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.

Table of Contents
Contents Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Issue Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Congress, Nuclear Policy, and RRW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The Need to Maintain Nuclear Warheads for the Long Term . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Solution So Far: The Life Extension Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Is LEP Satisfactory for the Long Term? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 RRW and the Transformation of Nuclear Warheads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 RRW and the Transformation of the Nuclear Weapons Enterprise . . . . . . . 14 Skeptics’ Views of RRW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Are the Surveillance Program and LEP Sufficient to Maintain the Stockpile? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Is RRW Needed in Order to Provide New Military Capabilities? . . . . 20 Might RRW Permit a Reduction in Warhead Numbers? . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Will RRW Save Money? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 How Might RRW Affect the Nuclear Weapons Complex? . . . . . . . . . 23 Might RRW Undermine U.S. Nonproliferation Efforts? . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Might LEP or RRW Lead to Nuclear Testing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Might RRW Enable an Increase In Inherent Warhead Security? . . . . . 26 Might RRW Enable an Increase In Warhead Safety? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Might RRW Reduce Adverse Consequences of Aging? . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Might RRW Enable Reduced Use of Hazardous Materials? . . . . . . . . 28 Policy Options for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Congressional Action on the FY2006 RRW Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Appendix: Nuclear Weapons and the Nuclear Weapons Complex . . . . . . . . . . 34