[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 126 (Monday, September 15, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11434-S11435]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            NUCLEAR WEAPONS

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while I am on the floor, I wish to mention 
that a couple of my colleagues--I believe, Senator Feinstein and 
Senator Kennedy--will be on the floor later today with an amendment 
dealing with the issue of nuclear weapons. I want to join

[[Page S11435]]

them in pointing out my special concern about what is happening with 
respect to nuclear weapons.
  We have roughly 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world--30,000 nuclear 
weapons, the use of any one of which would cause a catastrophe, as all 
of us know. So we have had what we call a doctrine of mutually assured 
destruction for a long, long while, with the other nuclear superpower 
believing no one would be able to use a nuclear weapon in an attack 
because they would be obliterated by the other side.
  That doctrine of mutually assured destruction has lasted for well 
over a half century. There are many in the world that aspire to achieve 
nuclear weapons for their own use--terrorists and other countries.
  The world depends on us and on our leadership to stop the spread of 
nuclear weapons. There is no--I repeat, there is no--duty that is more 
important, in my judgment, than for this country to use its leadership 
capability to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. For surely, if 
nuclear weapons proliferate in this world, they will, one day, be used, 
and when used in anger will persuade others to use them; and this Earth 
will not be the kind of Earth that we recognize in the future.
  The Energy and Water appropriations bill contains certain money to 
develop new bunker-buster nuclear weapons and to come up with so-called 
advanced concepts for new more ``useable'' nuclear weapons, and it has 
money to make it easier to end the ban on testing so we would begin 
testing once again.
  This is, in my judgment, reckless discussion, reckless talk. It 
certainly falls under the rubric of free speech and free debate, but I 
happen to think this country ought to say to the rest of the world: We 
want to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, No. 1. And we don't need 
to develop new nuclear weapons. We have far more than anyone needs. And 
second, the last thing we ought to do is to suggest to anyone there is 
a green light for anyone to use, at any time, under any circumstances, 
nuclear weapons.
  Here on this chart is what the House of Representatives said in their 
report recently about the administration's plans for nuclear weapons:

       It appears to the Committee the Department is proposing to 
     rebuild, restart, and redo and otherwise exercise every 
     capability that was used over the past forty years of the 
     Cold War and at the same time prepare for a future with an 
     expanded mission for nuclear weapons.

  As indicated on this other chart, here is the stockpile of nuclear 
weapons--roughly 30,000. We have about 10,000; the Russians have about 
18,000--you can see a few others around--the use of any one of which or 
the stealing of any one of which or the loss of any one of which to a 
terrorist group or a rogue nation would be devastating if they were to 
detonate.
  The people who are talking about developing new nuclear weapons are 
saying: What we ought to do is take a look at earth-penetrating, 
bunker-buster nuclear weapons. What a wonderful idea that is, they say.
  Well, the best scientists tell us you cannot penetrate the earth much 
more than 45 or 60 feet; you just can't. But they are talking about 
nuclear weapons up to 1 megaton, 60 to 70 times bigger than the 
Hiroshima bomb. That is what they talk about here: earth-penetrating, 
bunker-buster nuclear weapons. That means this country would build a 
nuclear weapon that we could actually use, not to deter someone else 
from using it, but a nuclear weapon that would be a useful weapon for 
designer purposes. If you have a bunker that you can't bust, lob over a 
nuclear weapon.

  Here is a picture of what a 100-kiloton nuclear explosion 635 feet 
underground does at the surface. These are not tiny, little designer 
nuclear weapons. These are huge explosions.
  The explosion shown on this picture was 635 feet underground. Likely, 
a bunker-buster weapon would be detonated at 50 to 60 feet underground.
  The point is this: We have a responsibility in this country, it seems 
to me, on these policies to exhibit great restraint. We have countries 
in the world that do have nuclear weapons, and we worry a great deal 
about them using them. India and Pakistan each have nuclear weapons. 
They don't like each other very much. There have been moments when we 
have been very concerned about the command and control of nuclear 
weapons in some other countries.
  Our job, at this point, is not to be talking about building new 
nuclear weapons: low-yield nuclear weapons, bunker-buster, earth-
penetrator nuclear weapons, to begin testing nuclear weapons. Our job, 
it seems to me, is to talk about restraint.
  We have all the nuclear weapons we will ever need, well over 10,000, 
both theater and strategic nuclear weapons. We do not need to be 
building more. We do not need to talk about using nuclear weapons. 
Those who talk about building specific-use nuclear weapons and saying 
there is a use for actual employment of nuclear weapons in conflict, 
that is not, in my judgment, in the long-term interests of this world 
or this country. I hope we will exhibit much more restraint than that.
  I know some will say: Well, we are simply beginning research on some 
of these issues. I say we do not need to research earth-penetrating, 
bunker-buster nuclear weapons. That is not in our country's interest, 
with due respect.
  What we ought to do is to exhibit every ounce of energy that we can 
and that we have to try to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, so that, 
God forbid, other countries do not acquire nuclear weapons, and then 
begin to work to reduce the number of nuclear weapons around the rest 
of the world.
  I know the amendment that will be offered by my colleague Senator 
Feinstein, this afternoon, will be controversial and will be debated. I 
respect people who do not share my own opinion on this issue, but I 
feel very strongly that the only conceivable future for nuclear 
weapons--for my children and grandchildren and yours--is to try to 
prevent nuclear weapons from ever again being used. That is the only 
thoughtful and conceivable future that will not address the future of 
this world in a very negative way.
  We must use our leadership capabilities. We are a great country and a 
mighty country. We must use our capabilities to persuade others that 
the use of nuclear weapons is not something that is thinkable or 
conceivable. We must exert every energy to stop the spread of nuclear 
weapons to so many others who want to obtain them in a way that would 
be destructive to our long-term interests.

  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________