FISCAL YEAR 1983 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATION HEARING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, PROCUREMENT AND MILITARY NUCLEAR SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, D.C., Monday, April 26, 1982. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Samuel S. Stratton (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL S. STRATTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK, CHAIRMAN, PROCUREMENT AND MILITARY NUCLEAR SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. STRATTON. The subcommittee will come to order. This afternoon we continue the subcommittee's fiscal year 1983 authorization hearings with testimony this time relating to the Department of Energy's defense programs, or as they are sometimes called, the DOE Atomic Energy Defense Activities. We start these hearings under a rising crescendo for an instant freeze on nuclear weapons testing, production, and stockpiling. We have physicians who tout the horrors of nuclear war and we have other learned groups who have concluded that it would be dangerous to one's health to be at a nuclear ground zero. I don't recall their conclusions on the effects on humans who happen to be at a ground zero when a terrorist bomb explodes in a car or an airport locker. I question such "spontaneous" activities because the bottomline always is, and I mean always, that it is somehow the fault of the United States that nuclear weapons exist, that we are the ones who ought to be chastised for their existence. And the effort that has been directed with such intensity here in the United States is somehow not being directed at all toward the Soviet Union, which has a preponderance of that type of weaponry today. Although those who support these demonstrations won't agree with it, it is always inferred, if not directly stated, by the leaders of these movements that the United States "let the nuclear genie out of the bottle," and if the United States would somehow decide unilaterally to give up our nuclear weapons, all would be right again. with the world. That is pure KGB drivel. It is most frequently stated by those who don't understand, don't want to understand, and will never (1) 94-853 0-82-2 understand that the Soviet Union today is the threat to world peace. Let me take a few moments to go back to the "nuclear genie" concept and the race for the development of nuclear weapons, because I think some of the problems we are facing today with regard to these demonstrations result from a sad lack of an understanding of history. Those who are leading the movements probably could not read at the time that the nuclear weapons were developed, or if they could read, they probably had forgotten what happened. In the 1930's, scientists in many countries in the world had concluded, but had not proved, that certain isotopes of uranium and other heavy elements might fission, or split apart, and release relatively large amounts of energy, if subjected to a stream of neutrons. In 1938, two non-Nazi scientists working in Germany proved that fission would indeed take place and large amounts of energy released. Scientists worldwide understood the impact of this discovery. And it was then that the "nuclear genie" was let out of the bottle, not when the United States detonated the first nuclear device in New Mexico in 1945, or dropped the first atomic bomb later that year over Hiroshima. World War II started in September 1939. Extensive research on nuclear fission was underway in Europe, Asia, and the United States, and Canada. It was Albert Einstein, a liberal German refugee, who convinced President Roosevelt that the United States should undertake a crash program to develop a nuclear explosive before Germany or Japan. It was Enrico Fermi, an Italian refugee, driven out of Italy because of the fascist government in Italy, who proved that a fission reaction could be self-sustaining. It was Edward Teller, a Hungarian; George Gamow, a Russian; Klaus Fuchs, a German-turned-Soviet spy; and tens of thousands of other foreign-born persons and native Americans who in 4 years produced the first nuclear explosives. When President Truman ordered the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, World War II ended. At that time, many scientists associated with the Manhattan project developed a sense of guilt. They seemed to feel that they had doomed mankind because of their part-large or small-in developing nuclear explosives. I wonder what their reaction might have been had Stalin or Hitler or Tojo been the first to have a nuclear explosive. These same guilt-ridden souls whose guilt is now being transferred to others who had no part in whatever guilt might have been connected with those developments-they seem to forget that Stalin, Hitler, and the Japanese were responsible for tens of millions of deaths using such mundane conventional methods as starvation, overwork, gas chambers, medical experiments, bullets, flame throwers and artillery shells. And, of course, they also forget that quite a number of Americans who are fortunately still alive today, including the chairman of this subcommittee, were slated to go ashore against Japan in early 1946, before the atomic bomb was dropped and mercifully led the Japanese to undertake surrender. By 1946, the Soviet Union had placed spies in almost every corner of the United States, attempting to steal nuclear secrets. I should point out that things haven't changed much in 1982. The first Soviet nuclear explosive was developed shortly after ours. The efforts of spying by the Rosenbergs, the Greenglasses, and the Klaus Fuchs no doubt helped shorten the time from inception to detonation of the first Soviet nuclear explosive. But even without U.S. help, the Soviets would have developed nuclear explosives. How many people are aware of the fact that the Soviets developed and detonated a thermonuclear device, the H bomb, before the United States did? Let us set the record straight. The "nuclear genie" was out of his bottle when fission became a laboratory word in the 1930's, and before President Roosevelt ever heard the words "atomic bomb." Over the years since 1945, the United States has made many sincere efforts to limit or reduce the size of the nuclear arsenals fielded by the superpowers. Harold Brown, the Secretary of Defense under President Carter, stated quite succinctly the results of U.S. efforts to limit armaments vis-a-vis the Soviets. He told the Armed Services Committee that when the United States increases its military forces, the Soviets increase their military forces; and when the United States decreases its military forces, the Soviets increase their military forces. What would a freeze today on the research, development, testing, production, and stockpiling of nuclear weapons mean to the United States? I firmly believe that instituting a nuclear freeze at present levels would put the United States into a position of permanent inferiority. That is not acceptable. We would be living from day to day at the sufferance of Soviet military leaders. What has preserved the nuclear peace over the 37 years since Hiroshima is the rough balance we have had with the Soviets. This nuclear balance disappeared over the past 5 years, while the Russians have carried on the greatest buildup of military forces, both nuclear and conventional, that the world has ever seen, including Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler. That is why President Reagan and our military leaders are determined, and Congress should be determined, to restore the balance so that we can at least continue a nuclear stalemate. After that, we can get meaningful nuclear arms reduction negotiations underway. I support arms reductions. I am a cosponsor with Congressman Carney and many others on House Concurrent Resolution 297, which concludes that: The United States should continue to press month after month, year after year, to achieve balanced, stabilizing arms reductions, looking, in time, to the elimination of all nuclear weapons from the world's arsenals. I don't think the Congress is composed of Strangelovian characters who believe only one thing about nuclear armament, that more of it is best. But I do believe when your major protagonist clearly demonstrates his firm adherence to the policy that the end justifies the means, one had better have on hand enough of whatever it takes to keep that adversary in line. I make these remarks, ladies and gentlemen, because obviously in the current temper of the times, when we report out a bill that may authorize $4 or $5 or $6 billion for the production of new nuclear weapons, we can expect to see a lineup of demonstrators who will suggest that if we just suspend that bill, everything will come out peacefully in the end. Mrs. Holt, we welcome your statement at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. MARJORIE S. HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND Mrs. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, you have said it all. Your comments on the nuclear genie are right on the mark. The tendency to blame this Nation for all the world's ills is fallacious, demeaning, and dangerous. One frequently hears in these halls demands to pull our troops out of Europe, to let the Japanese defend themselves, to build an inpenetrable defense ring around the United States, and let the rest of the world figure out how to hold off the Russian hordes. Those concepts are as incorrect as is the call for a freeze along the lines proposed by the Hatfield-Kennedy resolution. I see little difference between that resolution and the provisions of SALT II. Both ignore the fact that the Soviets are ahead of the United States in nuclear as well as conventional weapons in terms of quantity, and in many cases in terms of quality-for example, accuracy and megatonnage of ICBM reentry vehicles. President Reagan acknowledged this in a recent press conference. He is the first President to admit in public what those of us who have worked with these matters have been well aware of for some time. No nation is going to start a nuclear war if it realizes that the recipient of the strike can still retaliate in kind. As I see it, the basic purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear adventurism or all-out nuclear war. To deter a potential aggressor, we must have in being or under advanced development what the aggressor perceives as a credible retaliatory force. Sleight of hand or mirrors are not convincing and will not suffice in this deadly game. The ultimate goal of the people, the Congress, and the President is significant reductions worldwide in nuclear armaments. I doubt if we will succeed in this quest, however, if we ask the Soviets to give up something they have in place, the SS-20's or the SS-18's, in exchange for some weapon system we may never have. I find it difficult to conceive of the consequences of a nuclear weapons exchange between the United States and the U.S.S.R. I find it just as difficult to conceive of the consequences of capitulation to Soviet blackmail if we cannot deter a nuclear first strike because of known inferiority. Edward Teller said it quite well in an article in the Washington Post on April 22, 1982: The impractical alternative known as the "nuclear freeze" is closely akin to the old slogan "better red than dead." Few people seem to consider the other possibility, that given their values and beliefs it is very possible to be first red and then dead. How many of us will be able to give up forever the habits of free speech, free press, free travel, free worship, participation in government decisions without a single misstep? If we would live in peace, we must be willing to fight for peace. To quote again from Dr. Teller: Peace is more than the absence of war. It is an activity conducted each day and dependent on each decision. True peace must include in its basis the protection of citizens through civil defense as well as by proper active defense measures. Peace is best guaranteed when those who have peace are able to defend and protect themselves against any others. Lasting peace is based on common international actions in the interest of all people in every part of the world brought about by the cooperation of all. The nuclear systems produced by DOE are vital for our national security. It is our obligation and commitment to assure that every needed weapon is produced. It is also our responsibility to assure, in this period of budget stringency, that frivolous efforts are discouraged. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. STRATTON. Thank you very much, Mrs. Holt, for that very timely and accurate statement. Our first witness this morning is the Honorable Herman Roser, Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs in the Department of Energy. And let me, first of all, Mr. Secretary, congratulate you for your role, if any, in making sure that the Department of Energy was not abolished before we undertook these hearings, because I would be very much concerned as to who might have the oversight responsibility for these very important weapons. As you can see by our opening statements, we understand the problem totally. But I am afraid that there may be some, perhaps even in leadership positions, in the House who under other rules might not understand things quite as well. So we are glad that the Department is sticking around. We will do our best to try to keep it sticking. You don't have to respond to that. We don't want to jeopardize your position. But I just wanted to add that as an aside. So we will be very happy to have your statement at this time. As I understand, it is not classified. So with all of the demand from the media, as you can see, in the room, for information on these hearings, they will certainly want to pick this up. STATEMENT OF HON. HERMAN E. ROSER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Mr. ROSER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And may I commend you and Mrs. Holt for those sterling opening statements. I think you did an excellent job of putting the problem in its proper perspective. We appreciate the understanding and support that this committee has given us through the years. I sincerely welcome this opportunity to appear before this committee for the first time as Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs to testify on behalf of the Atomic Energy Defense Activities authorization request. I might add parenthetically that that is tempered a bit by not having the opportunity, as I have had in the past, to talk about the real nuts and bolts of the program, which is my first interest. |