PrintIf the Obama administration wants its way on arms control, it will likely have to pony up a substantial amount of money for U.S. nuclear weapons research, development and manufacturing.
That seemingly paradoxical situation is suggested by a December letter from Senate Republicans to the president. The letter sketches out the terms of a deal in which the Republicans argue that robust funding for the nuclear weapons program will be needed if the president wants their votes on an arms control treaty with the Russians. The Republicans' wish list includes money for weapon refurbishment and maintenance, major new nuclear facilities construction at Los Alamos and elsewhere and possibly design and construction of a new nuclear warhead.
Among the Republicans' demands: "full funding for the timely replacement of the Los Alamos plutonium research and development and analytical chemistry facility," a long-delayed project with a price tag most recently estimated at $2 billion.
The building would replace the lab's Chemistry and Metallurgy Research building, a plutonium-handling complex opened in 1952 that has been repeatedly cited as a source of safety and environmental concerns.
President Barack Obama has made a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians one of his top foreign policy priorities and has used his bully pulpit to push a broader arms control agenda. In a September United Nations speech, he identified the underlying goal: "a world without nuclear weapons."
But in the ensuing wrangling, it appears that in the near term more money will likely be spent on the U.S. nuclear deterrent, not less.
The administration's 2011 budget request will not be released for another three weeks, and the numbers are being closely held. But it is widely expected the administration will ask for an increase in the National Nuclear Security Administration's budget.
What remains unclear is whether there is enough money available in a tight federal budget to fund not only the Los Alamos plutonium complex but also the other things nuclear weapons program backers want, most notably a building complex at Oak Ridge, Tenn., that carries a similar price tag.
In inflation-adjusted terms, money for the NNSA's core nuclear weapons work, which makes Los Alamos and Sandia labs in New Mexico among the state's largest employers, peaked in 2005 at $7.3 billion, declining during the last half of the most recent Bush administration before settling during the past two years at $6.4 billion.
All 40 Senate Republicans and independent Joe Lieberman signed the letter, which was sent to Obama on Dec. 15.
The letter argues that any arms control deal with the Russians needs to be accompanied by "a plan to modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent." Such a plan, the senators wrote, should include:
Refurbishment of the W76 nuclear warhead and the B61 nuclear bomb, two of the aging Cold War mainstays of the U.S. arsenal.
"Full funding" for the program that monitors existing weapons for signs of aging, along with the science programs at Los Alamos and Sandia in New Mexico and the Lawrence Livermore lab in California.
Money for design and manufacture of "a modern warhead."
Funding to replace the 60-year-old Chemistry and Metallurgy Research lab at Los Alamos and to build a new uranium complex at Oak Ridge in Tennessee.
The administration is preparing its own "Nuclear Posture Review," a Pentagon overview of U.S. nuclear weapons policy. That report was expected early this year but has been delayed, meaning the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget request will provide the first detailed public look at the approach Obama's national security team favors on the issues raised in the senators' letter.
Expect a serious battle over the modern warhead, which many arms control advocates are lining up to fight. That means other spending priorities, especially the new buildings at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge, have a good chance of winning funding - if there is enough money available.
But that is a big "if." In congressional testimony last year, retired weapons program manager Everet Beckner argued that the projects, along with a third major nuclear facility proposed for South Carolina, were too expensive to build simultaneously. That sentiment is the dominant view now, suggesting the Obama administration will have to pick which one to build first.
UpFront is a daily front-page opinion column. John Fleck can be reached at 823-3916 or jfleck@abqjournal.com
