Nuclear Bomb Program to Cost an Extra $1 Billion Per Year

On the radar: The $10.4 billion bomb; Leadership after the election; Rumors of 20% suspension; the Iran strike that wasn’t; Cheating at Pantex; Threat reduction shift; and FAQ on nuking hurricanes.

November 5th, 2012 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Marianne Nari Fisher

Budget growth, schedule slippage - The program to refurbish the B-61 nuclear bomb could end up costing $10.4 billion and take three years longer than NNSA currently projects, according to Pentagon estimates reported by John Fleck at The Albuquerque Journal.

--”Already juggling its budget to cope with existing problems, [NNSA] will likely need to come up with another $1 billion per year for the next few years if the project is to go ahead as currently envisioned, according to a summary of the assessment obtained by the Journal.” http://bit.ly/Stcjiz

Tweet - @carrollpm: Costs of damage and rebuilding from 50 years of worst storms pales compared to US nuclear arsenal. Better way to spend? - http://bit.ly/VIBYVm

Shakeup on the Hill - Almost regardless of tomorrow’s election, Congress faces a leadership shakeup in several key foreign policy spots. “In the House, both the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) could change, as could the GOP leadership slot on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC). The Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) will have at least one new leader, and maybe two, by the end of 2013,” writes Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy. http://bit.ly/WqkqmE

Tweet - @NTI_GSN: Senate to Lose 2 Prominent GOP Experts on Nuclear Arms Matters http://bit.ly/PRtvSV

Welcome to Early Warning - Subscribe to our morning email or follow us on twitter.

--Have a tip? Email earlywarning@ploughshares.org. Want to support this work? Click here.

Deals and misquotes - Over the weekend, it was reported that Iranian Member of Parliament Mohammad Hossein Asfari said Iran had stopped enrichment to 20% as a gesture of goodwill for upcoming nuclear negotiations. That appeared to be a misquote, as Asafari told Iran’s Press TV on Sunday that 20% enrichment has not been halted, but Tehran remains open to a deal supply its reactor fuel needs from abroad if sanctions are lifted. http://bit.ly/SNQQnQ

Strike order in 2010 - “Two years ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak gave orders for the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for striking Iran's nuclear facilities. The IDF and the head of the Mossad at the time were certain that Netanyahu and Barak were trying to ‘steal a war’ – and the order was not fully carried out,” reports Gili Cohen at Haaretz. (paywall) http://bit.ly/R93jA8

Cheating at Pantex - Last week saw stories that NNSA helped security guards at the Y-12 nuclear facility cheat on certification exams. Apparently this cheating practice also spread to Pantex, the principal US facility for assembling and disassembling nuclear weapons, according to Jeffrey Smith at the Center for Public Integrity. http://bit.ly/TFIE94

Threat reduction shift - The Pentagon plans to shift up to $65 million in funds from threat reduction programs towards programs to detect and interdict nuclear smuggling. $35 million would move from the Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination-Russia initiative to the Proliferation Prevention Program and $30 million from the Cooperative Biological Engagement Program to the Global Nuclear Security effort. Global Security Newswire has the story. http://bit.ly/UtWYOB

Drone-based missile sensor - Japan is moving forward with development of a drone equipped with an infrared sensor to detect low altitude missiles. The decision was made after Japan did not detect North Korea’s failed rocket launch earlier this year. The drone is expected to be in service by 2020, at a cost around $372 million. Defense News with the details. http://bit.ly/UtYz73

Not a good idea - “During each hurricane season, there always appear suggestions that one should simply use nuclear weapons to try and destroy the storms. Apart from the fact that this might not even alter the storm, this approach neglects the problem that the released radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas and cause devastating environmental problems. Needless to say, this is not a good idea,” writes Chris Landsea on a “frequently asked question” for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. http://1.usa.gov/VukQqX