ShareThis Page
Corralling nuke bomb material |

Corralling nuke bomb material

| Monday, May 24, 2004 12:00 a.m

WASHINGTON — Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. wondered aloud one day in 2002 whether someone could build an atomic weapon from parts available on the open market. His audience, the leaders of the government’s nuclear laboratories, said it could be done.

Then do it, the Delaware Democrat, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, instructed the scientists in a confidential session. A few months later, they returned to the soundproof Senate meeting room with a workable nuclear weapon, missing only the fissile material.

“It was bigger than a breadbox and smaller than a dump truck, but they were able to get it in,” Biden said in a recent speech. The scientists “explained how — literally off the shelf, without doing anything illegal — they actually constructed this device.”

The relative ease with which U.S. scientists built an explosive nuclear weapon illustrates the need to secure plutonium and highly enriched uranium scattered in armories and research sites around the world, a pair of Harvard University researchers argue in a new study that contends the Bush administration is not doing enough.

Less fissile material was secured in the two years after Sept. 11, 2001, than in the two years just before, according to the Harvard report, which was obtained by The Washington Post. Half the equipment dispatched to Russia nearly four years ago as a fast, interim solution remains in warehouses, uninstalled because of bureaucratic disputes.

Calling it a “dangerous myth” that terrorists could acquire a nuclear weapon only with the help of a rogue state, authors Matthew Bunn and Anthony Wier use the Biden example to allege that a failure of U.S. commitment and leadership could lead to a nuclear calamity. They also warn that, in an unstable country, a nuclear weapon could be bought or stolen.

“What’s missing is a sense of urgency,” said former senator Sam Nunn, D-Ga., who heads the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative, which funded the 111-page study. Nunn believes President Bush must focus on removing bureaucratic hurdles and work more pointedly with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“If one of the great cities of the world goes up in smoke, and you look back on these obstacles, it will make our retroactive rear-view mirror look at September 11th look like a waltz,” Nunn said Sunday in an interview. “It would be so obvious that the obstacles should have been overcome by the presidents.”

Bunn and Wier credit the Bush administration, particularly the leadership of the Department of Energy, for making strides. But they write that the U.S. commitment is no match for the danger. As they put it, American authorities are not meeting Bush’s own pledge to “do all we can.”

In one case, plans were announced six years ago to destroy 68 metric tons of plutonium stripped from bombs and warheads in the United States and Russia, but the project remains stalled because of a dispute over who would pay if an accident or sabotage occurred in Russia. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., has blamed “trivial negotiating issues.”

In another example, the administration on average has requested less money to control nuclear materials and technology than was sought in the final Clinton administration budget, adjusted for inflation.

Although 16 percent more money has been spent than if the Clinton numbers had continued, “essentially all” of the increase was injected by congressional initiative, write Bunn and Wier, who reviewed federal spending on nonproliferation as an analyst at the Office of Management and Budget.

They report that the United States has taken more effective action than any other country, spending $9.2 billion from 1992 to 2004 to dismantle and secure weapons of mass destruction. Yet they note that the Defense Department is seeking $9.2 billion in the 2005 budget year alone to build a largely unproven defense system against a small number of missiles in a corner of the United States.

“It’s very easy in the standard political debate for them to point to the successes and not put them in the context of how small they are, and not showing what they have not yet done,” Bunn said in an interview. “The president has an opportunity to take action now that would drastically reduce the danger of nuclear terrorism in a few years.”

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.