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. For FY2005, Congress provided $9 million to start the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, which trades such Cold War features as high yield and low weight to gain features more valuable now, such as lower cost and improved use control. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which operates the nuclear weapons program, sees RRW as part of a plan that would also modernize the nuclear weapons complex, avoid nuclear testing, and reduce non-deployed weapons. The Nuclear Weapons Council conducted a competition, with the winning RRW design selected in March 2007. The FY2006 RRW appropriation was $24.8 million; the FY2007 operating plan has $35.8 million; and the FY2008 request lists $88.8 million for NNSA and $30.0 million for the Navy. H.R. 1585, the FY2008 defense authorization bill, as passed by the House reduces the NNSA request by $20 million and the Navy request by $25.0 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended eliminating FY2008 NNSA RRW funds. The Senate Armed Services Committee recommended reducing the Navy RRW request by $15.0 million. It said NNSA's budget request included $238.1 million for RRW, and recommended reducing that amount by $43.0 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended reducing the NNSA request by $22.8 million. Several committees would keep RRW in Phase 2A (design definition and cost study) in FY2008. 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, 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.
