DAF.jpg [1]
![](https://ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/DAF.jpg)
The U.S. has thousands of nuclear weapons in the queue for dismantlement, but it could take over a decade to complete dismantlements. In a recent post for [2]All Things Nuclear [2] [2]Nick Roth of the Union of Concerned Scientists - a Ploughshares grantee - explores how retooling a U.S. nuclear test facility could speed up dismantlement.
Last month, the Project on Government Oversight - a Ploughshares grantee - released a new report on "U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex: How the Country Can Profit and Become More Secure by Getting Rid of Its Surplus Weapons-Grade Uranium." [3] The last section of the report makes recommendation on how the U.S. can increase the rate at which it dismantles nuclear warheads.
According to the report the Device Assembly Facility (DAF at the Nevada National Security Site (previously the Nevada Test Site) could be used, in addition to the Pantex Plant in Texas, to disassemble nuclear warheads.
During the Bush Administration, when the Reliable Replacement Warhead was still being considered, the Department of Energy suggested that the DAF could be used for assembling the new warheads. [4] As Roth writes, "logically, if the DAF can be used to assemble a warhead, it can most likely also be used for disassembly."
Indeed, the Arms Control Association, published an article [5] in 2002 which argued that the DAF could potentially have 20% the dismantlement capacity of the Pantex facility.
Roth recommends that "the possibility of using this existing facility makes sense and should be investigated. The administration or congress should call for an independent review of its utility, environmental and health impacts, required modifications, and costs."
Note: Nickolas Roth is a Ploughshares Fund Grantee
Links
[1] https://ploughshares.org/file/2113
[2] http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/1359207754/not-a-dafy-idea
[3] http://pogoarchives.org/m/nss/downblending/report-20100914.pdf
[4] http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2005/nwcitf-rept_13jul2005.pdf
[5] http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1121