Question: How many of the tests scheduled for FY 1986 and FY 1987 are related to SDI or directed energy either as a primary purpose, add-on experiment, physics experiment or secondary purpose? Answer: DELETED Question: How many of the tests in FY 1986 and FY 1987 would relate directly to development and certification of new warhead designs or new weapons unrelated to the SDI effort? (Please provide a list of these tests, the warhead design, and weapon system) Answer: DELETED Question: For the record, provide a table showing each test on directed energy weapons, particularly the x-ray laser which is planned for FY 1986, FY 1987, through 1991. Please include the size in kt, the cost of the test, the lead lab, the estimated time (quarter of yr.), and a brief description of the type of test and the need for each test. Answer: The information requested for FY 1986 and FY 1987 is provided in the tables below. Our plans for tests for years beyond are not so specific or reliable, being paced by many factors, particularly, the actual technical results from near-term tests and the level of funding to support these efforts. DELETED DELETED Includes cumulative multiyear cost for each test representing field construction costs at the Nevada Test Site and estimates at the incremental cost accrued for each test by the Department of Energy weapon laboratories. Question: How many 'weapon effects' tests are planned by any agency in FY 1986 and FY 1987? Answer: In recent years, all tests whose primary purpose is the investigation of nuclear effects have been sponsored by the Department of Defense. DELETED Question: Dr. Orval Jones, the vice president for defense programs at Sandia National Laboratories, states that since the 1960's, a significant portion of our "weapons effects" testing has been taken over by large radiation simulators in the labs. (Machines that simulate radiation.) Please comment on the accuracy of this comment and briefly describe the importance of the Simulation Technology Laboratory at Sandia. Answer: Laboratory radiation simulators are currently used to test weapon component parts (small objects a few inches in diameter) for effects of radiation. They do not have the power to test large components such as fire sets; weapon subsystems such as arming, fuzing, and fire assemblies; or full-sized weapon systems such as missiles, reentry vehicles, and satellites. Only underground tests can accomplish this mission. The simulators are mainly used in the engineering phase of weapon electronics components development and in preparation for testing these components underground. Structural materials response testing with few exceptions is done underground because simulators cannot provide proper radiation environments. In the late 1960's, we only had simulators powerful enough to test small component parts at required radiation levels. Since then, simulation technology has evolved to the point where we can now envision and plan to build much larger simulators such as those planned for the Simulation Technology Laboratory. With these state-of-the-art simulators, we will be able to test large components and some subsystems to required radiation levels. However, underground testing will still be required for larger subsystems and the full weapon system. Full system tests will continue to be required because we cannot be sure of the survivability of the system until testing has been done with all of the subsystems in the container with the appropriate cabling connections made from subsystem to subsystem. Certain phenomena take place in the full system test that do not occur in individual subsystem tests. An example is system-generated electromagnetic pulse, an effect that is not predictable from calculations or above-ground testing of the subsystems. Thus, we can presently use laboratory simulators to test up to weapon component sizes rather than the small component parts of the 1960's, and this is the basis for Dr. Jones' statement. The importance of the Simulation Technology Laboratory is that we can now test up to subsystem-sized objects in the laboratory before testing at Nevada. Question: There was Future Testing a very disturbing article in the New York Times on Monday. Dr. Robert Seldon of Los Alamos Laboratory indicated that it would require 100 or 200 tests to develop our SDI or directed energy weapons. Dr. John Hopkins, head of weapons technology at Los Alamos, was quoted as saying it would take "decades" of testing these 3rd-generation nuclear weapons. believe that at our current testing pace, this number of tests would take 30 - 50 years or more to complete. Is this accurate? I The William J. Broad article was indeed very disturbing. The interview was recorded by both Mr. Broad and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The numbers 100 or 200 "tests" not "explosions" (the word used in the article) were used in an abstract discussion of the development of technology, using the number of tests to develop a new airplane as an example. No reference was made to increased nuclear testing in a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) (or any other) context. That number of nuclear tests to develop a new design has no precedent. It is not even in the ball park. Question: The testing budget has already tripled between FY 80 and the FY 87 budget request. What are the long term projections will you request substantial increases in the number of tests and the funding for tests? -1 Answer: I do not envision a significant increase in the request for nuclear testing. Question: Dr. Hans Bethe, a physicist and Nobel laureate, concludes that the prospect for third-generation weaponry is "the reason our government will not agree to a test ban." Do your agree that this is the primary reason for continued testing? (A major reason?) Answer: No, to both questions. The reasons our government will not agree to a test ban at this time and the conditions under which one would be considered are clearly stated in a March 7, 1986, letter from President Reagan to the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Dole. "...because of the continuing threat that we face now and for the foreseeable future, the security of the United States, its friends and its allies must rely upon a credible and effective nuclear deterrent. A limited level of testing assures that our weapons are safe, effective, reliable and survivable and assures our capability to respond to the continued Soviet nuclear arms buildup. ..." In addition, survivability of other military assets in a nuclear environment must be assured and depends on testing. Weapons Activities Question: Excluding the impact of the ICF program, what is the proposed staffing of the R&D laboratories for FY 1984, FY 1985, FY 1986, and 1987? Answer: Based on the requested funding and our set of assumptions which included 4.5 percent escalation from FY 1986 to FY 1987, we plan to attain a level of laboratory research and development employment of 9,150 full-time equivalents excluding Inertial Confinement Fusion. I would like to insert the following table for the record. Question: What is included in the budget for the discretionary funding of the laboratory directors for FY 1985, FY 1986, and FY 1987? Please provide the source of funds for these discretionary accounts and the accomplishments to date. Please show this information by laboratory. Answer: No specific funding is earmarked in the budget for the laboratory directors' discretionary use. Within the laboratories' available resources, they have the flexibility to allocate funds to be used to conduct exploratory research and development. Exploratory R&D estimates are presented in the following table which I would like to insert into the record. (The information follows:) Funding for Exploratory Research and Development work in the forefront of The goals of this program are to: science and technology, conduct studies of new hypotheses, and develop experimental devices, instruments, and components. These goals are being met by the program. Los Alamos National Laboratory's accomplishments include the development of technologies to utilize synchrotron sources for x-ray calibration of plasma diagnostic instrumentation. Applications of this work have been made to weapons diagnostics at the Nevada Test Site and have been transferred to both the Universities of Wisconsin and California at Berkeley for improvements of their accelerator facilities. Sandia National Laboratories accomplishments include advancing the knowledge of sensors which are potentially important for future smart weapons and the strategic defense initiative. An example of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's accomplishments is the diamond turning machine technology development in support of precision engineering. Question: Please provide a complete listing of expenditures from the discretionary account for FY 1985 for each laboratory. Answer: The expenditures are presented in the following tables which I would like to insert into the record. (The information follows:) |