Download Locations:
Summary:
Most current U.S. nuclear warheads were built in the 1970s and 1980s and are being retained longer than was planned. Yet they deteriorate and must be maintained. To correct problems, a Life Extension Program (LEP), part of a larger Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), replaces components. Modifying some components would require a nuclear test, but the United States has observed a test moratorium since 1992 so LEP rebuilds these components as closely as possible to original specifications. With this approach, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy have certified stockpile safety and reliability for the past 11 years without nuclear testing. In the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress provided $9 million to initiate the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. The program trades key Cold War features such as high yield and low weight to gain features more valuable now, such as lower cost, greater ease of manufacture, and a further increase in use control. It plans to make these improvements by designing replacement warheads that would not add military capability. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which operates the U.S. nuclear weapons program, views RRW as part of a comprehensive plan that would also modernize the nuclear weapons complex (the Complex), avoid nuclear testing, and reduce non-deployed weapons. The Nuclear Weapons Council, a joint NNSA-Department of Defense organization that coordinates nuclear weapons matters, conducted a competition for an RRW design, with the winning design selected in March 2007. The FY2006 RRW appropriation was $24.8 million; the FY2007 operating plan contains $35.8 million; and the FY2008 request is $88.8 million for NNSA and $30.0 million for the Navy. The House Armed Services Committee's mark would reduce the $88.8 million by $20 million and the $30.0 million by $25.0 million. NNSA argues that it will become harder to certify current warheads with LEP because small changes may undermine confidence in warheads, perhaps leading to nuclear testing, while RRW will lead to new-design replacement warheads that will be easier to manufacture and certify without testing. Critics believe LEP and SSP can maintain the stockpile indefinitely. They worry that untested RRWs may make a return to testing more likely. They question cost savings; even if RRW could lower operations and maintenance cost, its investment cost would be high. They note that there are no military requirements for new weapons. Still others feel that neither LEP nor RRW can provide high confidence over the long term, and would resume testing. Congress and the Administration prefer to avoid a return to testing. Issues facing the 110th Congress include how best to maintain the nuclear stockpile, whether to continue RRW or cancel it in favor of LEP, how to move RRW to engineering development if that is to be done, and how RRW might link to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and nuclear nonproliferation. This report provides background and tracks legislation. It will be updated often. CRS Report RL33748, Nuclear Warheads: The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program and the Life Extension Program, compares these two programs in detail.
