Three years after Prague speech: Nuclear tests continue under Obama administration
Feb. 10, 2012
by Yumi Kanazaki, Staff Writer
It will soon be three years since U.S. President Barack Obama gave the speech in which he called for a “world without nuclear weapons.” Delivered in Prague in April 2009, the speech raised hopes for the abolition of nuclear weapons. But since then the U.S. has repeatedly carried out subcritical tests as well as a new type of test of nuclear weapons, and there is widespread disappointment in Hiroshima. Why doesn’t the United States stop carrying out nuclear tests? How are the tests positioned in U.S. nuclear policy? The Chugoku Shimbun looked at the background behind these issues.
Between July 1945 and September 1992 the U.S. conducted more than 1,000 detonations of nuclear devices including air bursts and underground and underwater tests. Following the adoption of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by the United Nations General Assembly in 1996, the U.S. switched to subcritical tests, which do not involve explosions. Twenty-six of these tests have been conducted at an underground test facility in Nevada.
This basic policy has not changed under the Obama administration. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is under the Energy Department, oversees the maintenance of nuclear weapons. Since Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, the agency has conducted three subcritical nuclear tests and four new-type tests in which conditions similar to those at the moment of a nuclear blast are created using X-rays.
Hiromichi Umebayashi is an advisor to Peace Depot, a Yokohama-based non-profit think tank for nuclear weapons and other issues. “There is always debate in the U.S. regarding the performance and safety of its nuclear weapons, which are getting older year by year,” he said. “The U.S. position on confirming the performance of its weapons through nuclear testing is clear from President Obama’s speech in which he said, ‘As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary.’ ”
Data from the tests is used to conduct simulations of nuclear explosions with a supercomputer. The NNSA has said that it does not conduct tests that involve nuclear explosions and that its tests are for the purpose of verifying the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons. It has also stated that the tests will continue.
There is a wide variety of measures intended to maintain the performance of nuclear weapons. A huge budget has been set aside for the replacement of parts in nuclear warheads in order to extend their useful lives and for the construction of infrastructure at nuclear-related facilities.
The NNSA’s fiscal 2011 nuclear weapons-related budget was approximately $7 billion. It is scheduled to be increased to $8.9 billion by fiscal 2016. On January 26, when major cuts in its budget were announced, the Defense Department, which uses nuclear warheads on delivery systems such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, said there would be no cuts related to the nation’s nuclear capability, declaring that budget untouchable.
Kazumi Mizumoto, a professor at Hiroshima City University’s Hiroshima Peace Institute, said, “The defense industry, which is trying to get a budget, and the conservatives in Congress, who are in sympathy with this desire, are powerful. Unlike in Japan, the American public regards nuclear weapons as a symbol of U.S. victory in World War II and the Cold War.”
By law, the Secretary of Energy is required to ensure the proper maintenance of nuclear weapons and present an annual report to Congress. Nuclear testing is undeniably part of fulfilling this obligation.
Meanwhile behind the repeated nuclear tests carried out by the Obama administration is an effort to fend off criticism by conservatives in the run-up to the November presidential election.
The Clinton administration, which signed the CTBT, submitted a bill for ratification of the treaty to the Senate in 1999, but it was rejected in the face of opposition by the conservatives. This put a damper on the trend toward nuclear disarmament and remains an impediment to the treaty’s becoming law along with India, Pakistan, North Korea and other countries that have yet to sign it.
The Obama administration is waiting for a chance to try again to get the CTBT ratified. But, citing the results of its subcritical nuclear tests and the extension of the life of nuclear warheads, it emphasizes that the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons can be maintained even if tests that require nuclear explosions can not be carried out.
The Japanese government, which is in sympathy with this intent of the Obama administration, has not protested the subcritical or new-type tests. But there will be international criticism if the nuclear tests continue under the pretext of maintaining the performance of the weapons.
On January 10 the doomsday clock, which conceptually represents how much time is left until the end of the world as the result of global nuclear war or other threats, was moved ahead one minute to five minutes before midnight. After Obama’s Prague speech the board of directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists based in Chicago, which maintains the clock, moved it back one minute.
At a press conference the Bulletin cited the unclear path to “a world without nuclear weapons” as a reason for the change in the clock and took a critical stance toward the nuclear nations saying, “While governments claim they are only ensuring the safety of their warheads through replacement of bomb components and launch systems, as the deliberate process of arms reduction proceeds, such developments appear to other states to be signs of substantial military build-ups.”
Japan’s approach, by which it toes the U.S. line and seeks the “reliability” of nuclear deterrence, is also being called into question.
Frank von Hippel was involved in nuclear policy while serving as assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology during the Clinton administration. Von Hippel, 74, is now a professor at Princeton University. The Chugoku Shimbun asked him about the nuclear weapons situation in the United States. The following are excerpts from that interview.
All of the existing nuclear weapons were manufactured through the 1980s during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Conservatives and the military are deeply concerned that when the cores and other parts of nuclear warheads that contain plutonium grow old they may not work as they are supposed to. This is the basis for the subcritical tests and for extending the lives of warheads.
But in fact some scientists are of the opinion that tampering with nuclear warheads is a problem. The emphasis on concern about the weapons is colored by an effort to get a budget for nuclear weapons.
Since the end of the Cold War it has become more difficult to develop new nuclear warheads, and those involved with nuclear weapons have a sense of crisis about finding people to take over and about the passing on of the technology. The goal of state-of-the-art testing and research is to somehow maintain the technology to develop nuclear weapons.
Computer simulations of nuclear explosions using test data can also be diverted as technology and information to be used for the development of new types of nuclear warheads. There is always debate over where to draw the line between the maintenance of nuclear weapons and the development of new ones.
But subcritical and other nuclear tests are just a small part of the plan to retain nuclear weapons. The nuclear-related budget, which has ballooned since the administration of President George W. Bush, is the big price that was paid to get the U.S. Senate to approve the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia. A lot of other things besides tests are hindering the realization of “a world without nuclear weapons.” This problem won’t be solved merely by criticizing the Obama administration.
Since last year the NNSA has been regularly releasing information on the implementation of 13 types of tests to maintain the performance of nuclear weapons after the tests have been conducted.
Subcritical tests are those in which high explosives are used to deliver an impact to plutonium and then the reaction at the stage just before a nuclear explosion is studied. In these tests data is collected on whether or not the plutonium in old nuclear warheads reacts as it was designed to do. The tests are conducted at a facility about 300 meters underground at a test site in Nevada.
A new type of test conducted with the so-called Z machine at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico reportedly makes it possible to produce pressure and heat higher than that at the center of the earth by generating the strongest X-rays in the world. As with subcritical tests, conditions like those just before the moment of a nuclear explosion are created by suddenly compressing plutonium. Then scientists observe what happens.
This test does not involve the use of explosives, and only a few grams of plutonium are used. There is no leakage from the machine, so there is no need for a nuclear test site.
A National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California is now being operated on a trial basis. They reportedly can simulate the conditions at the time of the explosion of a hydrogen bomb by creating a nuclear fusion reaction using the most powerful laser beam in the world and radioactive tritium.
Nuclear Tests Conducted under the Obama Administration
2010 September Subcritical
November New type
December Subcritical
2011 February Subcritical
March New type
September New type
November New type
(Originally published on February 6, 2012)
It will soon be three years since U.S. President Barack Obama gave the speech in which he called for a “world without nuclear weapons.” Delivered in Prague in April 2009, the speech raised hopes for the abolition of nuclear weapons. But since then the U.S. has repeatedly carried out subcritical tests as well as a new type of test of nuclear weapons, and there is widespread disappointment in Hiroshima. Why doesn’t the United States stop carrying out nuclear tests? How are the tests positioned in U.S. nuclear policy? The Chugoku Shimbun looked at the background behind these issues.
Maintenance of deterrence strategy
Attempt to fend off criticism by conservatives
Between July 1945 and September 1992 the U.S. conducted more than 1,000 detonations of nuclear devices including air bursts and underground and underwater tests. Following the adoption of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by the United Nations General Assembly in 1996, the U.S. switched to subcritical tests, which do not involve explosions. Twenty-six of these tests have been conducted at an underground test facility in Nevada.
This basic policy has not changed under the Obama administration. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is under the Energy Department, oversees the maintenance of nuclear weapons. Since Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, the agency has conducted three subcritical nuclear tests and four new-type tests in which conditions similar to those at the moment of a nuclear blast are created using X-rays.
Hiromichi Umebayashi is an advisor to Peace Depot, a Yokohama-based non-profit think tank for nuclear weapons and other issues. “There is always debate in the U.S. regarding the performance and safety of its nuclear weapons, which are getting older year by year,” he said. “The U.S. position on confirming the performance of its weapons through nuclear testing is clear from President Obama’s speech in which he said, ‘As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary.’ ”
Data from the tests is used to conduct simulations of nuclear explosions with a supercomputer. The NNSA has said that it does not conduct tests that involve nuclear explosions and that its tests are for the purpose of verifying the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons. It has also stated that the tests will continue.
There is a wide variety of measures intended to maintain the performance of nuclear weapons. A huge budget has been set aside for the replacement of parts in nuclear warheads in order to extend their useful lives and for the construction of infrastructure at nuclear-related facilities.
Nuclear-related budget untouchable
The NNSA’s fiscal 2011 nuclear weapons-related budget was approximately $7 billion. It is scheduled to be increased to $8.9 billion by fiscal 2016. On January 26, when major cuts in its budget were announced, the Defense Department, which uses nuclear warheads on delivery systems such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, said there would be no cuts related to the nation’s nuclear capability, declaring that budget untouchable.
Kazumi Mizumoto, a professor at Hiroshima City University’s Hiroshima Peace Institute, said, “The defense industry, which is trying to get a budget, and the conservatives in Congress, who are in sympathy with this desire, are powerful. Unlike in Japan, the American public regards nuclear weapons as a symbol of U.S. victory in World War II and the Cold War.”
By law, the Secretary of Energy is required to ensure the proper maintenance of nuclear weapons and present an annual report to Congress. Nuclear testing is undeniably part of fulfilling this obligation.
Meanwhile behind the repeated nuclear tests carried out by the Obama administration is an effort to fend off criticism by conservatives in the run-up to the November presidential election.
The Clinton administration, which signed the CTBT, submitted a bill for ratification of the treaty to the Senate in 1999, but it was rejected in the face of opposition by the conservatives. This put a damper on the trend toward nuclear disarmament and remains an impediment to the treaty’s becoming law along with India, Pakistan, North Korea and other countries that have yet to sign it.
The Obama administration is waiting for a chance to try again to get the CTBT ratified. But, citing the results of its subcritical nuclear tests and the extension of the life of nuclear warheads, it emphasizes that the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons can be maintained even if tests that require nuclear explosions can not be carried out.
Doomsday Clock moved forward
The Japanese government, which is in sympathy with this intent of the Obama administration, has not protested the subcritical or new-type tests. But there will be international criticism if the nuclear tests continue under the pretext of maintaining the performance of the weapons.
On January 10 the doomsday clock, which conceptually represents how much time is left until the end of the world as the result of global nuclear war or other threats, was moved ahead one minute to five minutes before midnight. After Obama’s Prague speech the board of directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists based in Chicago, which maintains the clock, moved it back one minute.
At a press conference the Bulletin cited the unclear path to “a world without nuclear weapons” as a reason for the change in the clock and took a critical stance toward the nuclear nations saying, “While governments claim they are only ensuring the safety of their warheads through replacement of bomb components and launch systems, as the deliberate process of arms reduction proceeds, such developments appear to other states to be signs of substantial military build-ups.”
Japan’s approach, by which it toes the U.S. line and seeks the “reliability” of nuclear deterrence, is also being called into question.
An interview with Prof. Frank von Hippel, former Clinton administration official
Passing on developed technology is one goal
Frank von Hippel was involved in nuclear policy while serving as assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology during the Clinton administration. Von Hippel, 74, is now a professor at Princeton University. The Chugoku Shimbun asked him about the nuclear weapons situation in the United States. The following are excerpts from that interview.
All of the existing nuclear weapons were manufactured through the 1980s during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Conservatives and the military are deeply concerned that when the cores and other parts of nuclear warheads that contain plutonium grow old they may not work as they are supposed to. This is the basis for the subcritical tests and for extending the lives of warheads.
But in fact some scientists are of the opinion that tampering with nuclear warheads is a problem. The emphasis on concern about the weapons is colored by an effort to get a budget for nuclear weapons.
Since the end of the Cold War it has become more difficult to develop new nuclear warheads, and those involved with nuclear weapons have a sense of crisis about finding people to take over and about the passing on of the technology. The goal of state-of-the-art testing and research is to somehow maintain the technology to develop nuclear weapons.
Computer simulations of nuclear explosions using test data can also be diverted as technology and information to be used for the development of new types of nuclear warheads. There is always debate over where to draw the line between the maintenance of nuclear weapons and the development of new ones.
But subcritical and other nuclear tests are just a small part of the plan to retain nuclear weapons. The nuclear-related budget, which has ballooned since the administration of President George W. Bush, is the big price that was paid to get the U.S. Senate to approve the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia. A lot of other things besides tests are hindering the realization of “a world without nuclear weapons.” This problem won’t be solved merely by criticizing the Obama administration.
Tests to maintain performance
13 types including subcritical
Since last year the NNSA has been regularly releasing information on the implementation of 13 types of tests to maintain the performance of nuclear weapons after the tests have been conducted.
Subcritical tests are those in which high explosives are used to deliver an impact to plutonium and then the reaction at the stage just before a nuclear explosion is studied. In these tests data is collected on whether or not the plutonium in old nuclear warheads reacts as it was designed to do. The tests are conducted at a facility about 300 meters underground at a test site in Nevada.
A new type of test conducted with the so-called Z machine at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico reportedly makes it possible to produce pressure and heat higher than that at the center of the earth by generating the strongest X-rays in the world. As with subcritical tests, conditions like those just before the moment of a nuclear explosion are created by suddenly compressing plutonium. Then scientists observe what happens.
This test does not involve the use of explosives, and only a few grams of plutonium are used. There is no leakage from the machine, so there is no need for a nuclear test site.
A National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California is now being operated on a trial basis. They reportedly can simulate the conditions at the time of the explosion of a hydrogen bomb by creating a nuclear fusion reaction using the most powerful laser beam in the world and radioactive tritium.
Nuclear Tests Conducted under the Obama Administration
2010 September Subcritical
November New type
December Subcritical
2011 February Subcritical
March New type
September New type
November New type
(Originally published on February 6, 2012)
