Reviving nuclear testing in America

Why the nuclear threats of Iran and North Korea cannot go unanswered

By Jessica Mintz
From the September 2006 Print Edition

“The force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed …”
— President Harry Truman

It has been more than 60 years since Little Boy and Fat Man ended World War II and almost 15 years since the United States performed its last underground nuclear test in Nevada. Since then, Asian rivals India and Pakistan have become nuclear powers, North Korea has defiantly pursued its own nuclear arsenal, and Iran has called for Israel’s destruction while constructing facilities capable of enriching uranium. The rising threat of nuclear strikes from rogue states demonstrates the necessity of maintaining a credible U.S. nuclear deterrent.

The physics of a nuclear weapon is simple; obtaining the materials and machinery necessary to construct one is not. Terrorists have not yet struck with nuclear weapons primarily because of the numerous obstacles to producing them. The mechanics of converting abstract physical principles into a capable weapon is a challenge. Nuclear testing provides means to verify success and improve designs.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty , signed by the United States in 1996 and not yet ratified, calls for an end to nuclear testing in all forms, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has the eventual aim of encouraging the world’s known nuclear powers to completely disarm.

While some of the objectives of these treaties are laudable, other implications of the CTBT and the NPT are frightening. American citizens and people around the world depend on a U.S. nuclear umbrella for security. Remove the deterrent, and a disaster of biblical proportions will become much more likely as belligerent regimes ignore treaties and develop nuclear capabilities.

You’ll often find liberal advocates of extreme gun control also clamor for a U.S. nuclear disarmament. There is an ominous common theme. Both would empower the ruthless, and tie responsible countries’ hands. Extreme gun-control laws would ensure that only criminals have guns, since law-abiding citizens would turn in their firearms, while those who intended to break the law would not hesitate to arm themselves to make crime easier. Disarmament would have a similar effect: large nations would slowly destroy their weapons, while dictatorships would privately build their arsenals. Despite what doves in Congress preach, evil regimes do exist and nuclear weapons will not vanish if the United States buries its head in the sand. Nuclear technology has the potential for widespread destruction but also can be employed to ensure safety and security, as demonstrated by the decades of détente between the superpowers during the Cold War.

Choosing the positive path lies in our ability to maintain the weapons we possess, prevent proliferation, and develop innovative new nuclear (and other) capabilities better suited to the harsh battle against terrorism. These goals require the revival of nuclear testing, among other prudent defensive measures.

The U.S. Stockpile Stewardship program, designed to replace some important aspects of testing, relies on simulations to predict an aging warhead’s performance. Supercomputers are needed to model the vast complexities of nuclear weapons systems. These intricate programs provide valuable information about the condition of the stockpile. However, a computer simulation cannot fully account for the nearly limitless set of variables. Scientists are forced to use data from tests performed decades ago — at some point, the researchers must verify that aging systems and their replacements will indeed work as intended.

Other development programs like the Reliable Replacement Warhead use clever design strategies to reduce the need for testing but do not eliminate it, especially when new (untested) applications are considered. Controlled fusion experiments like those scheduled at the National Ignition Facility in Livermore will provide insight about the current condition of U.S. fusion weapons, and methods of tapping this limitless reservoir of energy for peaceful purposes.

North Korea’s July missile tests point to the necessity of continued research on precision lower-yield weapons capable of destroying specific targets. No one wants to see a repeat of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the archaic Cold War relics in national stockpiles today assure a repetition of that destruction under a number of plausible scenarios. In the event of a retaliatory strike, if the United States cannot be certain newer and more precise nuclear warheads will work, the nation would have to select the high-yield option. While nuclear conflict is not yet imminent, the military must have a plan for all contingencies. In the event of a nuclear attack on the United States, low-yield retaliatory warheads would inflict more precise damage on military targets and minimize civilian casualties.

Reluctance to resume nuclear testing is largely political. Environmental and health hazards presented by nuclear fallout are circumvented by underground testing. The edge of the Nevada Test Site, the location of most of the United States’ past nuclear tests, is more than sixty miles south of Las Vegas and tests pose no threat to the inhabitants of Nevada or anyone else should underground testing resume. Some fear the advent of a new arms race, but such concerns are overblown. Testing an existing stockpile will instead signal to rogue states such as North Korea and Iran that the United States will not stand for new nuclear development. Complacently watching the nation’s arsenal decay at a time when dictatorships are developing new nuclear weapons would only increase the likelihood that these new weapons will in fact be used against the United States and its allies.

The abandonment of nuclear testing and the meager funding of nuclear research have undermined the credibility of our deterrent and emboldened our adversaries, decidedly increasing the risk of a catastrophic attack. We must act quickly less we relinquish our security to a ruthless, more determined opponent.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot