Unredacted Congressional Study Undermines NNSA Rationale for Nuclear Core Production

Last week’s release of the unredacted JASON document is a win for public transparency against a secretive government agency, and its findings cast doubt upon the NNSA’s repeated assertions that new nuclear bomb cores (“pits”) are urgently required to replace aging stockpile components.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report last year, which concluded that aging of plutonium in the stockpile is not yet a viable motivation for what will be a costly and potentially dangerous replacement effort. The report warned that the rushed push to produce new pits could increase health risks to workers and nearby communities while contributing to political destabilization and a potential arms race.

Below is a statement from Dr. Dylan Spaulding, a senior scientist in the Global Security Program at UCS. Dr. Spaulding authored the UCS report on the United States’ plans for new plutonium pit production.

“The public has clearly come out against this increasingly expensive and risky weapons program, and our report makes it clear that the NNSA has other options available. The JASON study that Congress asked for reaffirms that view, finding that plutonium aging doesn’t pose a risk to the integrity of the existing U.S. stockpile. Rather, these new pits are intended for new nuclear warheads that will only fuel further international instability.

“The NNSA is again asking Congress for tens of billions of dollars while increasingly ignoring its requests for oversight and failing, after years, to put together a complete project schedule and cost estimate. Congress should take a harder look at the necessity and scope of this blank check project and consider ways to improve our national security that do not risk the health of communities across New Mexico, South Carolina and elsewhere.”