Do you think that the world's nuclear stockpiles are safe?
Nuclear Stockpiles
From an environmental point of view, the main concerns about nuclear weapons are:
- insufficient care on the part of nuclear weapons owners in their maintenance,
- the damage the weapons can cause if used,
- their spread around the world whether by sale or by new development.
Sale of nuclear weapons or material does at least mean no addition in the overall amount of nuclear material in the world, but may mean a reduction in its security. Even nuclear bombs can be recycled. For example, the nuclear material in the Mark 6 "60-inch nuclear bomb" (the first atomic bomb to be mass produced by the United States, first deployed in 1951) went into the more powerful H-bombs after 1957. But whether it is recycled or not, there still remains a risk of deliberate or accidental release of radioactivity.
In the USA it is the Department of Energy (DOE) that is responsible for maintaining the safety and reliability of America’s nuclear deterrent, without underground nuclear testing. The Nuclear Posture Review 05 1994 set a goal of reducing the number of operationally-deployed weapons to 3,800 nuclear warheads by 2007 and 1,700-2,200 nuclear warheads by 2012, though there would also be a non-strategic or inactive stockpile. On May 24 2002 the USA and Russia signed a Nuclear Arms treaty to reduce their strategic nuclear warhead arsenals to the range of 1,700 to 2,200 each by December 31, 2012. The USA planned to keep some warheads as spares, store some, and destroy others. President Bush said the USA has around 6,000. In May 2005 Russia said it was prepared to reduce its stockpile further to 1,500 warheads or less, provided that Russia's security was assured. One would need to know the exact figures and types of weapons, and how much nuclear material they contained, to have some idea of the total amount of nuclear material involved. Fewer weapons does not mean less, if each has more material.
The nuclear stockpile includes plutonium and uranium, both of which can corrode with age, and radioactivity from them can affect other materials in the bombs. According to golabalsecurity.org, The USA had about 10,640 nuclear weapons and Russia about 16,000 at the beginning of this year. Russia's aging stockpile is of more concern, as there have been incidents of smuggling of nuclear material and there are not the same resources for maintenance.
The Defense Department was studying developing a bunker-buster bomb back in April 2001. It was felt that having such smaller nuclear weapons would allow the U.S. to reduce its stockpile of 6,000 much more powerful warheads, and enable the U.S. to attack Saddam Hussein's alleged biological and chemical stockpiles stored in underground bunkers. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) felt that such weapons were more likely to be actually used, and that such five-kiloton bombs would need to be buried at a depth of 650 feet in order to be fully contained. A government scientist said that a one-kiloton warhead would need to be only 175 feet underground. Critics also said that radioactive debris would escape into the atmosphere, as such bombs could not penetrate deep enough.
Another way that nuclear material is spread about the world is by the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons. This is forbidden by the United Nations and against many international laws, but they are being used in Iraq. Between 320 and 1000 metric tons of DU were left on the battlefield after the first Gulf war. A UK Atomic Energy Authority report estimates there will be 500,000 deaths before the end of the century as a result. There have also been many birth defects. Alloyed DU is very good both for armour plating and armour penetration, but it is about 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium and has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. If countries are willing to use DU rounds, is it such a large step to believe that they might be willing to use bunker-busters, in spite of the likelihood that they, too, would spread radioactivity?
Senate defeats move to stop nuclear bomb study,
Senate OKs Continued Study of Nuclear Arms
The Senate voted 53-43 to allocate $4 million for an Energy Department feasibility study for a "bunker buster" nuclear bomb. The equivalent House bill does not have the allocation. The $31.2 billion spending bill for energy and water projects, which also included funds for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, passed 92-3. It included less for Yucca than President Bush had requested, and nothing for the temporary storage sites as a backup to Yucca Mountain that the House favoured. The Senate preferred temporary above ground storage. Yucca Mountain is intended to store 77,000 tons of defense and commercial nuclear waste for 10,000 years, and will not be ready before 2012. The Senate approved $339 million for a new mixed-oxide fuel plant in South Carolina compared to $35 million in the House bill.
Please see the following message for the remaining stories. Sue [sysop in NewsForum, World Issues, All Animals forums] | 
