{"id":61550,"date":"2019-11-12T14:27:26","date_gmt":"2019-11-12T14:27:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2019\/11\/12\/heres-how-a-cr-could-hurt-americas-nuclear-weapons-modernization\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T00:26:44","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T00:26:44","slug":"heres-how-a-cr-could-hurt-americas-nuclear-weapons-modernization","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/smr\/nuclear-arsenal\/2019\/11\/12\/heres-how-a-cr-could-hurt-americas-nuclear-weapons-modernization\/","title":{"rendered":"Here\u2019s how a CR could hurt America\u2019s nuclear weapons modernization"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/atype-video-jwplayer>
Dr. Charles Verdon, the head of defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, talks with Aaron Mehta about delays to the B61-12 nuclear bomb<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 A long-term continuing resolution will result in delays for modernizing America\u2019s nuclear warheads<\/a>, while putting at risk an already challenging plan to build plutonium pits needed for the next generation of U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear officials are warning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The National Nuclear Security Administration is a semiautonomous agency under the Department of Energy that handles the manufacturing and maintenance<\/a> of America\u2019s nuclear warheads. Like other government agencies, NNSA would be limited to fiscal 2019 funding limits under a continuing resolution, and it would be unable to start new contracts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The current continuing resolution, or CR, is set to end Nov. 21, but there is little expectation that regular budgeting will then resume. Congress is debating the merits of pushing the CR through December<\/a>, but analysts are concerned the CR could extend into next year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe are in a situation right now where we have single-point failures throughout our enterprise,\u201d Lisa Gordon-Hagerty<\/a>, the NNSA administrator, said during a Defense Writers Group breakfast earlier this month. \u201cIt\u2019s necessary for us, for the NNSA and for the nuclear security enterprise to receive consistent and robust funding to modernize our infrastructure as well as continue ongoing operations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe\u2019re looking at where we can move funding insofar as CRs will allow us to do so,\u201d she added. \u201cWe\u2019re working very closely with OMB and the administration to see what we can do to continue our important programs to modernize the infrastructure as well as the stockpile and our workforce initiatives and our endeavors.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gordon-Hagerty did not go into detail about specific CR-related worries, but according to an NNSA source, the agency has identified three main areas of concern under a longer CR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first is, broadly, keeping the warhead modernization efforts on schedule. Two of those modernization programs \u2014 the B61-12 gravity bomb<\/a> and W88 submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead \u2014 already face program delays thanks to an issue<\/a> with a commercial part that has to be redesigned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gordon-Hagerty said a CR should not impact that particular issue, as the funding for a solution is coming from a realignment of other warhead modernization programs. But a delay to one program caused by a CR \u201cdoes affect all of the other modernization programs and all of the other work that we have ongoing throughout our nuclear security enterprise,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second major area of concern is the surplus plutonium disposition program, which is supposed to dispose of 34 metric tons of excess plutonium at a South Carolina facility. That program emerged as the successor to the controversial MOX program<\/a>, and has faced opposition from South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. Construction on that facility could be delayed under a CR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NNSA source said that the agency requested extra funding for the surplus plutonium disposition program through the budget anomaly process, but was not given the resources it requested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third area of concern is a 10-year plan to develop a native plutonium pit in the United States. The NNSA has been charged with producing 80 plutonium pits a year by 2030, a target that Gordon-Hagerty acknowledged is a tight window for the agency to hit, even with stable funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe are again rebalancing, looking at our budget across the entire enterprise to see what it is we need to do to meet the scope and schedule of that 2030,\u201d she said. \u201cAm I confident we can get there? Yes. Is it fraught with \u2014 probably a bad way of saying it \u2014 land mines? It is.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\t