麻豆传媒

The US will slash its stockpile of nuclear weapons by nearly half over the next eight years, the US Department of Energy has pledged.

Reductions to the nuclear stockpile would leave the US with 鈥渢he smallest nuclear-weapons stockpile we鈥檝e had in several decades鈥�, said Linton Brooks, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, on Thursday. He would not discuss exact numbers, but told the New York Times: 鈥淭he numbers I鈥檓 prepared to use are 鈥榓lmost in half鈥�.鈥�

The move is in addition to the existing pledge made by US President George W Bush under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in November 2001. Also known as the Moscow Treaty, this commits both the US and Russia to cut the number of 鈥渙perationally deployed鈥� warheads to between 1700 and 2200 by 2012. This will mean a cut of two-thirds for the US.

However, the real extent of the nuclear weapons reduction is difficult to gauge as weapons are classified in a number of ways. Reducing the number of operationally deployed warheads could mean reclassifying them as reserve weapons, dismantling them and storing the components, or less likely actually destroying them.

鈥淚t鈥檚 certainly a welcome step,鈥� says Matt Martin, deputy director of the British American Security Information Council, in Washington DC. 鈥淎ny time the US administration announces it鈥檚 going to be making a reduction is a step forward 鈥� it鈥檚 better than doing nothing.鈥�

But he points out that there are many questions yet to be answered about the plan, which was sent to Congress in a classified report on Tuesday.

Spare parts

鈥淭he first question is whether this is going to lead to an actual reduction in the US stockpile. I鈥檓 not sure that鈥檚 absolutely the case,鈥� he told 麻豆传媒. 鈥淭he counting methods are so obscure, it鈥檚 difficult to say exactly what the implications are going to be.鈥�

The nuclear stockpile can be divided into active and inactive weapons. Active weapons included operationally deployed warheads 鈥� which are attached to a delivery system such as a missile and are ready to use 鈥� as well as warheads separated from the delivery vehicles in 鈥渉edges鈥�. Inactive weapons can have their crucial components removed and stored.

Another question, says Martin, is the international context in which the US will keep this new pledge. Storing nuclear materials in countries like the US or UK does not pose a large security risk in terms of terrorists, he says, but this is not the case for Russia.

鈥淭he whole point of the treaties enacted throughout the Cold War period was that there was a reciprocal arrangement between the US and Russia, which had the great benefit of reducing Russia鈥檚 stockpile,鈥� says Martin. He says the US would be better to use any willingness to give up nuclear arms as leverage to persuade Russia to do the same.

Bunker busters

Martin also points out that eight years is long enough for the Bush administration to push ahead with plans for creating new nuclear weapons or modifying old ones.

The current large and massively destructive weapons are not considered to be particularly useful in today鈥檚 climate, he says, and projects for creating 鈥渕ini-nukes鈥� have been touted. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted not to remove a clause in a defense bill that provides funding for research on nuclear 鈥渂unker busters鈥�.

Brooks鈥� covering letter to Congress also highlights that: 鈥淚n recommending this stockpile plan to the President, we recognise that maintaining the nation鈥檚 nuclear deterrence with a much smaller stockpile means that we must continue administration efforts to restore the nuclear weapons infrastructure.鈥�

This includes plan to build a new bomb plant. This Modern Pit Facility would manufacture the 鈥減its鈥� which form the central core of plutonium weapons.