Directors Say National Labs Are Underfunded
By Walter PincusWashington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 17, 2008; Page A03
The directors of the nation's three national nuclear weapons laboratories say that budget cuts by Congress and the Bush administration have reduced their ability to carry out scientific research needed to reassure the reliability of the nation's nuclear arsenal in future years.
Citing growing financial demands, George H. Miller, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said, "science is being squeezed out," during a meeting yesterday with Washington Post editors and reporters. He said the labs in total had experienced a shortfall of several hundred million dollars in needed funds.
Miller, Los Alamos National Laboratory Director Michael R. Anastasio and Sandia National Laboratories Director Thomas O. Hunter also jointly conveyed that warning at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing yesterday.
The Bush administration is already pursuing a costly restructuring of the U.S. nuclear complex, including many buildings that date from the Manhattan Project of the 1940s. It is also funding the refurbishment of a reduced number of the Cold War-era warheads and bombs and buying costly equipment that can ensure the weapons work without underground testing.
But the administration has been unable to gain congressional approval to develop a new generation of warheads under the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, using old, tested nuclear components. A bipartisan congressional group said the executive branch should decide the number of warheads necessary through the year 2030 before the program can be approved.
Miller said there is a risk of "confidence eroding in the current stockpile" over the next few years if a decision is not made to proceed with the RRW program, which will determine the size of a future weapons complex. The directors also said that Livermore and Los Alamos have lost about 2,000 employees each since 2006, including scientists they wanted to retain.
Underfunded? You guys are the biggest bunch of babies I have ever seen!
ReplyDeletePuh-lease! Science is being squeezed out because of the bloated management and all the support organizations resulting in the cost of doing science. Mike is not a supporter of science - he hired a bunch of C-grade students as ADs for the scientific directorates, hired Wallace because his momma told him to, and btw neither is George Livermore folks.
ReplyDeleteThe directors of the nation's three national nuclear weapons laboratories say that budget cuts by Congress and the Bush administration have reduced their ability to carry out scientific research needed to reassure the reliability of the nation's nuclear arsenal in future years
ReplyDeleteha ha ha ha....their own personal and corporate greed are doing more damage than anything else
See, boys, that 'for profit' thing is a double-edge sword and you should've been savvy enough to know this goin' in... When your cookie jar seems to be a little slim you might check your pockets and try to recall how often and how deep you've been dipping in the ol' till. Further, quit blamin' the baker for lacking or for the guilt or shame you are feeling [or should be] when the whole world is wondering why the ample supply of cookies didn't even reach the rest of the kids on the playground who were working on the science project that you were taking credit for.
ReplyDelete"Citing growing financial demands, George H. Miller, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said, "science is being squeezed out," during a meeting yesterday with Washington Post editors and reporters. He said the labs in total had experienced a shortfall of several hundred million dollars in needed funds."
ReplyDeleteOh, my, science is dieing at LANL and LLNL!
Let's direct or project focus into niche areas that are drying up from lack of funds, jack up the FTE rates for our programs, bring in a bunch more of those highly paid PADs and ADs, load up the support staff with additional positions, create more brain-dead policies that help crush morale, and add more mandatory training requirements for all the employees.
That should solve the problem!
This is disgusting.
ReplyDeleteLANL and LLNL have plenty
of money. Far too much of it
is wasted to overhead and un-necessary managers along with the
large fees paid to the managing LLCs.
These directors are shamless!
The directors also said that Livermore and Los Alamos have lost about 2,000 employees each since 2006, including scientists they wanted to retain.
ReplyDeleteWell usually (both in academia and the corporate world) these folks receive a nice convincing offer from their home institution to stay. Apparently that didn't happen at the labs. Too bad.
SSPed
"Miller said there is a risk of "confidence eroding in the current stockpile" over the next few years if a decision is not made to proceed with the RRW program, which will determine the size of a future weapons complex."
ReplyDelete()()()()()()
The production bombplex ideas contained in the NNSA's Complex Transformation plan won't happen because Congress won't fund them. The NNSA's bluff will be called.
RRW has little support with most politicians. At best, it will be kept on life support with funding of a few million or so each year. Likewise, building over 80 pits per year at LANL is a non-starter with most of Congress. It looks very bad for the US to be doing this while we threaten other nations who are attempting to basically do the same thing. Congress will be quite happy to let LANL muddle along with the current TA-55 facilities turning out around 10 pits or less per year.
It's too bad neither LLNS nor LANS seem to have a descent backup plan for when their grand bomblex ideas begin to falter. Both labs have a lot of potential for greater diversity in their project portfolios if the LLC's and NNSA would seriously support the growth by reducing costs and helping to nurture outside funding efforts.
The bomplex plan failure and lack of a good backup may cause a lot of pain for the lab workforce (not that Mike, George, or any of their highly paid PADs or ADs will suffer much). It's rare to see such a large disconnect between a government agency and the people who sign the checks. But, then, we're talking about DOE/NNSA here -- a department that is widely regarded in Washington DC as one of the most dysfunctional in all of government.
3/06
ReplyDeleteStaff+PDs - 9205
Staff Aug - 498
3/07
Staff+PDs - 9034
Staff Aug - 502
3/08
Staff+PDs - 8352
Staff Aug - 343
I read "lost" as a net figure, but that's me. I don't see a loss of 2000 people in these figures, more like ~1000 from 3/06-3/08. Maybe "lost" to GM and MA means 2000 left?
Is there a better future for LANL if we in the 3rd District elect a Congressman who would actively attempt to undo the mess that privatization has made of all our national laboratories? Or is LANL's future only viable if it's managed by a private for-profit company?
ReplyDeleteHow can private companies responsible first to their stockholders to make a profit and to pay dividends manage research labs which do not produce benchmarkable products? How much of the drive to produce pits and cut LANL's research is based upon profits, not a changing complex?
I am concerned that not one of the candidates for Udall's seat has a clear understanding of how LANL functions, of the problems within LANL brought about by privatization, and the impact those problems are having on the social fabric of northern NM. They seem to focus only on the financial issues which certainly need to be solved, a major one being the lack of purchasing from NM businesses.
Someone wrote in an earlier comment to this blog, "On the subject of the NNM economy, LANL's impact is diminishing, and not just because of the funding cuts, SSP, and other staff departures. LANS is circumventing the intent of the NNM contracting requirement by using its 'proteges' to conduct much of the work that would otherwise be openly competed (some proteges are direct relationships with LANS; others are carryovers from Bechtel). While the protege businesses have established a physical address in NNM, in reality, these are practically a front. The money passed through to them by LANS is farmed to staff in their out-of-state offices. It's interesting that none of New Mexico's newspapers have taken a closer look at how LANS' procurement actually functions."
Should the candidates for Udall's seat be asked the following questions?
1. What future do you see for national laboratories, including LANL, that are managed by for-profit companies?
2. Would you propose changing LANL's mission by bringing more work-for-others (WFO) to LANL knowing that LANL's current overhead cost has almost priced this work out of existence?
3. Do you understand how the cost of doing business at LANL has risen by at least $100,000/staff member since LANS assumed management?"
4. Do you understand that much of this rise in the cost of doing business is a function of the bloated management structure at LANL?
5. Do you understand how Congress has now limited LANL's ability to participate in WFO?
6. Do you propose to make all private contractors who use taxpayers' dollars publish how that money is spent?
Some 430 LANL SSPers walked out the door even though LANS was insistent on having final approval of whether or not they would be allowed to volunteer. Based the Director's memo that all were accepted, I guess it's reasonable to conclude none of these 430 included "scientists they wanted to retain."
ReplyDeleteAlthough, in fairness, the Director did say, "I want to acknowledge each of those 430 individuals. You have been an integral part of the Laboratory community over the years, and I thank you for your tireless efforts and many contributions to this Laboratory’s successes."
Underfunded? Overfunded? How can you tell? Does it matter? With 430more people gone, is there anyone left who could be responsible for a below-ground test? Not that there's any will in Washington right now to find out if a weapon will still work. But if enough people wise up in the next ten years or so to ask for a test, could a test be performed? (Please no one answer that a test could just be outsourced to the PRC or FSU.)
ReplyDeleteWritten statement by Dr. Michael R. Anastasio, director of LANL, can be found here, short summary:
ReplyDelete(1) The Stockpile Stewardship Program, at LANL, Hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, April 16, 2008, Michael R. Anastasio, Director, LANL.
(1.1) Opening Remarks.
(2) Development of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
(3) Tools of Science-based Stockpile Stewardship.
(4) Production Complex and Life Extension Programs.
(5) The Stockpile Stewardship Program Has Been a Success.
(6) Life Extension Programs.
(7) Reestablishing Pit Capacity.
(8) Advanced Simulation and Computing (ACS).
(9) Advanced Radiographic Experiments.
(10) Ignition Experiments.
(11) Stockpile Surveillance.
(11.1) Birth defects.
(11.2) Design limitations.
(11.3) Aging effects.
(12) Other National Security Applications of Stockpile Stewardship Tools.
(13) Recent Los Alamos Threat Reduction Accomplishments.
(14) Recent Los Alamos Science and Energy Security Accomplishments.
(15) Increasing Risks to the Future Success of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
(16) Tough Challenges Ahead - LANL.
(16.1) Commitment to Science.
(16.2) Commitment to the Scientists.
(16.3) Commitment to Modern Facilities.
(16.4) Controlling Costs while Maintaining Mission Capability.
(17) Critical Crossroads for the National Stockpile Stewardship Program.
(18) Concluding Remarks.
(www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Anastasio04_16_08.pdf)
(Overall character of the statemment:
Formal, academic, doesn´t think outside the box (=no visions), don´t take the opportunity to ask the Senate for explicit extra funding of SSP, could push harder for the RRW, no mention of Directed Energy Weapons, and Missile Defense if that could be a future task for DOE/NNSA and the National labs, and to establish a more advanced rationale between DOE/NNSA, DoD, DHS, that would be beneficial for strategic defense in general, and less costly.)
Anastasio appears to have committed perjury in this hearing;
ReplyDelete"At Los Alamos, we are actively working to reduce our physical footprint by roughly two million square feet (over one-quarter of the reduction has been completed in the last year and a half)."
Anastasio is counting the Admin Bldg. in this one-quarter, but the Admin building hasn't been closed - it's still operating and occupied. Even the General Accounting Office, the accounting office of Congress, has determined that LANS cannot take credit for achieving this goal.
The fee LANS recieved, in part based on this false claim, was fradulently gained. LANS officers should be prosecuted.
7:32 pm: "The fee LANS recieved, in part based on this false claim, was fradulently gained. LANS officers should be prosecuted."
ReplyDeleteRight, Batman. I think Alfred has your tea waiting. Don't worry, Robin will park the Batmobile.
Mikey should return some of his"bonus" for doing such a "good job"
ReplyDeleteHow can you tell when a nuclear Lab director is lying? When his lips begin to move.
ReplyDeleteThese guys are like tobacco industry executives. They'll never admit a thing, no matter what. Need more money? Of course. Always! Could it be you're wasting money? Of course not. Never!
ReplyDeleteMike mentioned in his Congressional talk that he would like to see the responsibility for lab stewardship of the stockpile shared between both LANL and LLNL, regardless of who designed each weapon model.
ReplyDeleteSince most of the weapons in the stockpile were designed by LANL, this idea basically gives away much of our stewardship work to LLNL.
Thanks a bundle, Mike. Heckavajob!
Miller of LLNL had a bullet in his talk that mentioned his desire to lower the cost of business so they can aggressively go after more WFO projects.
ReplyDeleteHunter of SNL also pushed hard on the desire for his lab to bring in more outside work at competitive rates.
And Mike? Mostly silence on the subject. Instead, he spent much of his time talking about the NNSA production complex he wishes to see built here at LANL.
LANS is slowly killing off the future of this place. Once the production plans are nixed by Congress, there will be little left to help back us out of a budgetary black hole. The other Directors seem to "get it" when it comes to the idea of growing the outside work. Why doesn't Mike?
LANS seems to be doing everything they can to tie the hands of the staff behind their backs and put them at a disadvantage when it comes to securing non-NNSA work.
It's too bad neither LLNS nor LANS seem to have a descent backup plan for when their grand bomblex ideas begin to falter.
ReplyDelete=============
Good grief; your spelliing is bad.
I assume the intended word
above was supposed to be "decent";
a "decent backup plan".
However, given the declining circumstances;
a "descent backup plan" may be what is
needed.
t looks very bad for the US to be doing this while we threaten other nations who are attempting to basically do the same thing.
ReplyDelete==========
Under the NPT - Nuclear NonProliferation
Treaty - the USA is one of the P5 powers.
The USA is ALLOWED to have nukes under
the NPT. The countries we go after are
the ones that are NOT permitted to have
nukes.
Sure, the NPT is "asymmetric"; but all
signatories signed on VOLUNTARILY.
8:56 am: Let's not forget the other side of the NPT "coin": The P5 are required to assist non-nuclear states with "peaceful uses" of nuclear energy. That's when we get into arguments about enrichment, fuel cycles, etc., as in Iran.
ReplyDeleteHey Mr. Director! (LANL,SNLA,LLNL, or whatever)
ReplyDeleteQuit your whining. Until you grow the spine to refuse to continue certifying a nuclear weapon system without a nuclear test, you are going to see your funding redistributed to the REAL weapons -- those that can be demonstrated -- as in BANG!. As long as you Directors continue to suck up to the whims of the DC DoGooders, your budgets will dwindle away. Grow some cajones, refuse to certify, it's what right for the Nation.
"Good grief; your spelliing is bad."
ReplyDeleteYour proofreading is worse!
(Pinky, please consider putting this post on the blog's front page)
ReplyDelete***** LISTEN TO THIS AUDIO *****
Audio from the Congressional Appropriations meeting held this week is now online. It is 2 hours and 21 minutes long. You can find it here:
----------------------------------
appropriations.senate.gov/Media/
2008_04_14_
Listen_to_the_April_16_
Energy_and_Water_Hearing.ram
----------------------------------
I would urge all staff at LANL to take the time to listen to it. You will find it very interesting.
In particular, you can safely skip the first hour and concentrate on the sections past the 1:00 HR mark.
* 1:05 - Sen. Feinstein discovers the the LLC profit fees for LLNL of $46 million are going to private companies. She seems to have known about the LLC but was unaware that the money was to go to private companies like Bechtel, Washington Group, etc. She is obviously upset on finding this out.
* 1:20 - Anastasio gives his talk (his voice has a warble quality to it; he sounds scared)
*** THIS SECTION BELOW IS CLASSIC! ***
* 1:44 - Sen. Dorgan asks Miller (LLNL) about the full cost for the LLNS LLC. Miller says the full annual cost is $130 million and you can hear Sen. Dorgan in the background suddenly gasp: "Geeze!!!"
**************************************
* 2:01 - Sen. Feinstein makes it very clear she is no friend of nuclear weapons work. However, she is very concerned about the national security implications of putting 500 unemployed weapon scientists on the street out at LLNL.
* 2:06 - Miller says health care costs at LLNL went up $47 million over the previous UC costs with the creation of the new LLC (!!!!)
* 2:14 - Sen. Feinstein attacks D'Agostino for his comments
In general, there is a lot of discussion during the second half regarding concerns about the loss of science at the labs. All the Senators seem concerned about it and want to hear answers from NNSA. The Senators are also very angry and concerned about the quickly rising costs brought about by the creation of the LLCs. It is also clear that the Senators feel that the staff layoffs that have been occurring are largely being driven by the new LLC fees and they are not happy about it.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete4/18/08 8:39 AM
Go away. The most pointless wasteful comment posted to this string.
Asshole
4/18/08 9:32 PM
9:32,
8:39 seemed to be pretty much right on the mark. Does your last five-letter word refer to 8:39 or yourself?
Neither Sen. Dorgan nor Sen. Feinstein seem to have much love for the weapon labs from the sound of that audio presentation. These Senators are the people who will be holding much of the political power after the next election. Yikes!!!
ReplyDeleteAlso, I thought it was interesting when Sen. Feinstein questioned whether fired LLNL employees might be given jobs out at either LANL or SNL since these labs haven't yet had a big RIF. As if we don't already have enough budgetary problems out here at our New Mexico labs!
"2:01 - Sen. Feinstein makes it very clear she is no friend of nuclear weapons work. However, she is very concerned about the national security implications of putting 500 unemployed weapon scientists on the street out at LLNL."
ReplyDeleteDo these people know:
That not all the people at the Labs work on weapons?
Not all that many are really "weapon scientists"?
That LLNL's own media releases say most of those likely to be let go are in administrative and non-science and engineering areas?
Just amazing.
6:52 pm: "Not all that many are really "weapon scientists"?"
ReplyDeleteSorry, most have Q clearances and therefore potentialy, at least, have detailed weapon design information. They're all fair game for the foreign agents out there. Get a clue.
8:22, the statement was "weapon scientists", not everyone who has a Q. If you want to include proven security failures like JQ, and everyone who has a Q in the "weapon scientists" category, feel free to do so.
ReplyDelete4/19/08 9:30 AM
ReplyDeleteTo you actually.
9:44 am: I was simply trying to point out that the concern attributed to Sen. Feinstein: "she is very concerned about the national security implications of putting 500 unemployed weapon scientists on the street out at LLNL" applies to all Q cleared people, not just "weapon scientists."
ReplyDelete4/17/08 4:32 PM and 4/18/08 6:24 PM, I agree in your comments.
ReplyDeleteReasons to address nuclear testing as of April 2008, post Cold War, post 9/11:
1) The US voluntary test moratorium since 1992 has outlived itself. (It has almost become like a NW Religion that only serve the enemy(s) as of April 2008.)
2) Technical: SSP, LEP, RRW, et cetera.
3) Strategic: Proof of nuclear superpower status.
4) Political: From policy of the weak to policy of the strong.
5) Knowledge transformation.
6) Change of Worldview: From Idealism to Realism.
7) The long time scale without nuclear testing: 2008 (16 years), 2012 (20 years), 2017 (25 years), 2022 (30 years), 2027 (35 years), 2032 (40 years), 2037 (45 years), 2042 (50 years), 2067 (75 years), 2092 (100 years) - the further you arrive on this time scale, without nuclear testing, the clearer it become that the voluntary test moratorium since 1992 doesn´t benefit US interest.
Statements by Mike Anastasio (LANL), Tom D´Agostino (NNSA), George Miller (LLNL), Tom Hunter (SNL) can be found here:
ReplyDelete1) www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Anastasio04_16_08.pdf
2) www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/DAgostino04_16_08.pdf
3) www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Miller04_16_08.pdf
4) www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Hunter04_16_08.pdf
Give it up, 5:32 PM. A return to underground testing will not happen, new RRW designed warheads will never go into production, and the weapon labs are set on a NNSA planned path of big downsizing.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a pretty future for those who work at LANL, but it is what it is. Denial won't change a thing.
4/22/08 12:00 PM
ReplyDeleteMy objective was to outline a strategic rationale, (summarized as: (1) An outlived US voluntary test moratorium since 1992, (2) Technical, (3) Strategic, (4) Political, (5) Knowledge transformation, (6) Change of Worldview, (7) The long time scale without nuclear testing), for future nuclear testing, whenever needed in the near future, or the far future, and to understand the reasons why you can return to nuclear testing.
Nuclear testing will return when 1) Iran tests; 2) Pakistan tests again, under the new regime; 3) China makes a serious threatening move towards Taiwan; 4) North Korea tests again; 5) Russia tests again.
ReplyDeleteThe latter is the most probable. Europe will be paralyzed, China will be horrified, and the US will, of course, blame itself, but will test nonetheless.
Nuclear testing may resume in the US, but it won't happen until at least another 20 years have passed and the military planners begin to get more concerned about our aging nukes. The current W-88 warhead is only 20 years old, so more time is required to build up a greater uncertainty factor.
ReplyDeleteWhen the uncertainty gets large enough, Congress will finally take action and we may see some very limited underground testing. This very limited testing will be negotiated between the US and the major nuclear powers and will come with clauses that strictly limit further nuclear weapons development.
8:02 pm: "Nuclear testing may resume in the US, but it won't happen until at least another 20 years have passed and the military planners begin to get more concerned about our aging nukes."
ReplyDeleteI have no clue where you came up with "another 20 years" but you obviously aren't aware of the current state of "concern".
bullshit. Nobody will attack the US in the hope that all the W76s won't fire, despite what Dick Morse says. Deterrence does not depend on 99% yield assurance. NW design and engineering is a dead business. Forever.
ReplyDelete9:33 pm: Like I said, you obviously aren't aware of the current state of "concern".
ReplyDeleteI am also amused that you think this is about somebody "attacking the US." In case you forgot, that already happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
9:53, you are a jerk. You quoted half the 9:33's sentence about adversaries attacking the US in the belief that our stockpile would not function.
ReplyDeleteSo, if you are so smart 9:53, explain how a nuclear deterrence is supposed to work against non-state adversaries. And be sure to tell the Pentagon your theory, because it will be news to them.
While you are at it, learn some intellectual honesty.
Director Michael R. Anastasio´s Statement before the U.S. Senate, April 16, 2008, page 8:
ReplyDelete"Recent Los Alamos Threat Reduction Accomplishments
/---/
We rapidly and effectively supported the national response to the North Korean nuclear test. We provided the sole technical support from the Department of Energy at the Six-Party talks in Beijing on implementation of the North Korean denuclearization commitments."
/---/
But, this statement is outdated only 8 days later, April 24, 2008:
"Smoking Gun Images Of Syria Nuke Reactor?
Video Made By U.S. Intelligence Claims N. Korea
Secretly Helped Syria Build A Reactor, Which Was Nearly Operational.
Washington, April 24, 2008
(CBS/AP) The White House said Thursday that North Korea´s secret work on a nuclear reactor with Syria was "a dangerous and potentially destabilizing development for the world," raising doubts about Pyongyang´s intention to carry through with a promised disclosure of its nuclear activities.
Seven months after Israel bombed [September 6, 2007] the reactor, the White House broke its silence and said North Korea assisted Syria´s secret nuclear program and that the destroyed facility was not intended for "peaceful purposes."
The disclosure could undermine six-party negotiations to try to resolve the nuclear standoff with North Korea. The White House issued a two-page statement after lawmakers were given details about the reactor in a series of briefings on Capitol Hill. The White House said the International Atomic Energy Agency also was being briefed on the intelligence.
While calling North Korea´s nuclear assistance to Syria a "dangerous manifestation" of Pyongyang´s nuclear weapons program and its proliferation activities, the U.S. said it remained committed to the talks.
The administration said that after the reactor was damaged beyond repair, Syria tried to bury evidence of its existence.
"This cover-up only served to reinforce our confidence that this reactor was not intended for peaceful activities," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "The Syrian regime must come clean before the world regarding its illicit nuclear activities."
CIA Director Michael Hayden, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley briefed lawmakers, who were shown a video presentation of intelligence information that the administration contends establishes a strong link between North Korea´s nuclear program and the bombed Syrian site. It included still photographs that showed a strong resemblance between specific features of the plant and the one near Yongbyon."
/---/
(www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/national/main4040170.shtml)
And further:
"Syria´s Covert Nuclear Reactor
This handout video produced by U.S. intelligence describes the "nuclear reactor Syria was building secretly" at Al Kibar. The video also claims N. Korea "assisted Syria´s covert nuclear activities."" (CBS News Video; 11:34)
And further:
"Korea Helps Syria Go Nuclear
Members of Congress are up in arms over ground-level photos just released by the Bush administration showing a North Korean nuclear reactor in Syria.
David Martin reports." (CBS News Video; 2:32)
(Key understanding post Cold War, post 9/11:
Assymetric Warfare, (Nuclear) Terrorism, Rogue States, Non-State Actors, Nonlinear, Unpredictable, Preemptive Strike, Rise of the Irrational, Globalization, et cetera.)
Both North Korea and Syria could be taken out with less than a dozen US nukes. None of this makes a case for spending billions for RRW and starting up underground testing.
ReplyDeletePoster 9:53/2:08 has no intellectual honesty. He's an old dinosaur who just wants to keep the good times rolling for the nuclear weapons industry and uses fear-mongering in place of good, solid arguments.
Next, I suppose he'll stoop to using the good ol' Mustang car analogy for our nuclear arsenal. Yeah, that's the ticket! US nukes are just like a mid-60's Mustang that has been sitting in a garage just waiting for someone to turn the key to see if it works. The public will easily swallow that whopper.
6:44 pm: "Poster 9:53/2:08 has no intellectual honesty. He's an old dinosaur who just wants to keep the good times rolling for the nuclear weapons industry and uses fear-mongering in place of good, solid arguments."
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm only one of the two posters you think are the same (I'll leave it to you to guess which). It's not about "the good times rolling"; it's about the fact that nuclear nonproliferation has now completely failed. Any of the world's states that want nuclear weapons now have them or are about to have them. Nuclear disarmament by the US now would be suicide, which I suppose is what you want.
So, 9:55 PM, you equate not restarting underground testing or producing the RRW with US nuclear disarmament? How telling and how stupid.
ReplyDeleteWe have thousands of good nukes in our strategic arsenal. Anyone who threatens the US can be evaporated from the face of the earth in a single afternoon. There is no need for a buildup of the US nuclear arsenal.
1:07 pm: "There is no need for a buildup of the US nuclear arsenal."
ReplyDeleteNo one is talking about a "buildup." In case you don't know, the US has signed and ratified a treaty with Russia to reduce warheads to around 1700, which will be a very significant reduction from today's numbers, for both countries. No one is talking about junking that treaty. Get real. RRW and testing don't mean a "buildup." The earlier poster said "NW design and engineering is a dead business. Forever." THAT'S disarmament.
4/26/08 1:30 PM
ReplyDeleteAs of the May 2002, Treaty of Moscow, i.e. the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), between the United States and Russia, both countries are required to reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals to 1,700 - 2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012.
(www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/inventory/pdfs/sort.pdf)