Feb 14, 2009

Nuclear Work in Danger

By John Fleck, The Albuquerque Journal

The Obama administration wants to kill major nuclear weapons design and manufacturing programs left by its Republican predecessors and ratchet down the amount of non-weapons science done at Los Alamos and other nuclear weapons labs, according to a document obtained by the Journal.

The memo calls for canceling the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a proposal to design a new U.S. nuclear weapon.

Other proposed changes:

• Cancel plans to expand Los Alamos National Laboratory's capability to make plutonium warhead parts.

• Cancel spending to upgrade the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center, a major non-weapons science project that federal officials have argued is critical to supporting non-weapons science at Los Alamos.

• Cut in half money allotted to Los Alamos and the other nuclear weapons labs, including Sandia National Laboratories, for "laboratory-directed research and development" — money the labs use to pursue promising research of their own choosing.

• Consider delaying new supercomputer purchases.

Details of the memo were first reported by the Washington, D.C., trade publications Inside the Pentagon and Nuclear Weapons and Materials Monitor.

Money saved by the cuts would be shifted to U.S. efforts to halt the international spread of nuclear weapons, according to the document.

Overall, the proposal calls for a 1.5 percent increase in 2010 funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages the U.S. nuclear weapons program. More than 20,000 people in New Mexico, primarily at Sandia and Los Alamos national labs, work for NNSA.

Officials at the agency and the labs declined to comment Friday, citing the internal nature of the current deliberations.

The document, part of the administration's internal deliberations over the 2010 budget, is the clearest indication made public to date of the course the new Obama team plans to set on U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, spoke out last fall in favor of the Reliable Replacement Warhead. During the campaign, Barack Obama had raised objections to the project, but in a way that left the door open to some modest research efforts.

The memo suggests an effort under way now to close that door, going out of its way to ensure that both direct funding for the RRW program, as well as indirect funding in other research programs that would support RRW work, is zeroed out in the soon-to-be delivered Fiscal Year 2010 budget now being prepared.

"The RRW program, both explicitly and implicitly, is canceled," the memo says.

The memo appears to freeze Los Alamos National Laboratory's plutonium manufacturing capability at a maximum of 20 nuclear weapon cores, known as "pits," per year. Recent policy discussions have considered expanding beyond that level.

The memo is silent on one of the most expensive nuclear weapons projects at Los Alamos, the multibillion Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement complex. The big new plutonium laboratory would replace a building that is half a century old and that has been branded a hazard by federal nuclear safety auditors.

A Congressional funding committee in 2007 concluded that, if RRW was not going to be built, there was no need for the new nuclear lab. Lab and NNSA officials disagree, saying other important work, including nuclear safety and non-proliferation work, will also be done in the new laboratory, and the unsafe old building must be replaced.

183 comments:

Anonymous said...

Should I be getting paranoid?

Anonymous said...

Funding may be in danger, but work certainly isn't. Can't go less than zero.

Anonymous said...

Mommy..

Anonymous said...

"Officials at the agency and the labs declined to comment Friday, citing the internal nature of the current deliberations."

Translation: Got to change underware...we crapped our shorts"

Anonymous said...

Northern New Mexico has spoken and they said Obamanos and now it looks like the jobs will soon say vamos. You want green jobs you will soon get them….you can have some red jobs as well selling green and red chili.

How pathetic this state is.

Anonymous said...

Now aren't all you liberals glad that you voted for "change"? Good luck selling your houses now!

Anonymous said...

2/14/09 7:20 AM

Yes!

Anonymous said...

Come on, we all knew this was the direction we were headed, and YES the CMRR will be zeroed out. It's time to do what you must to survive in the rapidly changing priotities of our country. While Sen Domeinic is on trial for "Political Crimes" he can only watch his Lab wither on the vine, ah "what sweet sorrow". The end of LANL.

Anonymous said...

That's it... it's all over for the labs. All in plain to understand lingo too.

The next four years are going to see the end of the US as we know it. God help us all.

Anonymous said...

Wait till Kevin tries to spin this one. "The Lab now has been given a new Secintific Challange by the new Obama administration: to see if the real smart people at LANL can continue to work and live without any funding what-so-ever, and do so in a safe and effective manner while maintaining an eco friendly relation with surrounding areas. PS. We also commit to be transparent and accountable to the employees and the public through-out this very challanging process.

Anonymous said...

To 8:03: You haven't left yet? What are you waiting for?

Anonymous said...

The northern New Mexicans that voted for Obama remind me of the cartoons where the character is sawing off a branch on a tree while they're standing on the side of the branch that's about to fall.

Our Chief Ewok Officer had better start doing a good sales pitch to D.C. on how LANL can be retooled to be the best green research lab in the country. The community can be part of the research into what changes in infrastructure need to take place to facilitate the transition to electric and hydrogen fuel cell transportation.

Like the Manhattan Project, where building the bomb was only half of the problem and coming up with a plane to deliver it the other, changing what fuels our energy needs requires not only research and gains made in battery and fuel cell technology, but also the infrastructure needed to support it.

Anything nuclear is going to be way out of fashion for the next four and possibly eight years. Personally, I would like to see more nuclear technology producing our energy needs, but with the current administration we have now, that isn't very likely to happen.

Anonymous said...

7:44 All of us will be changing our shorts, shortly. It's the only "Change you can Believe In"

Anonymous said...

Git the guns, we're headin' fer the hills....

Anonymous said...

"Money saved by the cuts would be shifted to U.S. efforts to halt the international spread of nuclear weapons, according to the document."

You mean like:
-India
-Pakistan
-North Korea
- Iran
_???

I don't think this effort is working. Well, we might have halted Mexico & Bangladesh - so far.

Anonymous said...

Budget cuts shouldn't affect my bonus, should they?

MIKEY!

Anonymous said...

Cutting LDRD while expecting the weapons laboratories to branch out is nonsense. This shows the stupidity of Obama and his Democrat Congress.

Anonymous said...

The CR expires March 6 do you suppose it will be extended or will Obama's plan be implemented then? Now is the perfect time to kill LANL while everybody's attention is on the 'stimulus' and before Biden's prediction of a terrorist attack comes true.
No objections will come from NM congressional delegation and LANS managers can just move back home to LLNL.

Anonymous said...

This has taken our minds off of the lost laptops.

Anonymous said...

Read the opening statement carefully:

"The Obama administration wants to
kill major nuclear weapons design
and manufacturing programs left by
its Republican predecessors and
ratchet down the amount of
non-weapons science done at Los
Alamos and other nuclear weapons
labs, according to a document
obtained by the Journal."

Let's see here: kill nuclear weapons work AND reduce the non-weapons science! What are we left with?

Anonymous said...

7:30 am: "Can't go less than zero."

Sure you can. If "zero" is going to work and not working, "less than zero" is staying home and not getting paid.

Anonymous said...

Y'all seem to have forgotten that the LANS contract spells out an award fee of ~$79 million, regardless of the size of LANL's budget or the number of staff employed.

Think about that for a minute --

That's right! LANS does not care how big or small the budget is: it pays the same. Don't expect LANS to put up a big fight to retain LANL's diminishing budget and work portfolio.

Anonymous said...

Who was the memo to and who wrote it? Damn Fleck and all his unnecessary secrecy! :)

Seriously, someone must be fearing the repercussions if the source of this "memo" becomes known. The wording "the RRW program...IS cancelled" (emphasis added) suggests this is merely someone's set of proposed policy steps or talking points. I think I'll wait a bit before I set my hair on fire.

Anonymous said...

""Officials at the agency and the labs declined to comment Friday, citing the internal nature of the current deliberations."

Translation: Got to change underware...we crapped our shorts""

Doubt it. Do you think any of the officials involved at that level will be losing their jobs?

Anonymous said...

2/14/09 8:03 AM

Goodbye!

Anonymous said...

Cutting LDRD in half!, cool!

Anonymous said...

Other than cutting LDRD, how many people are involved in working on the other expansion and upgrade projects mentioned, as well as RRW? I did not see mention of closing down LANSCE, canceling pit production, or no new supercomputers at some point.

Anonymous said...

LDRD supports an amazingly broad spectrum of basic science research. Some of it is OK, some of it is truly great stuff. Most has nothing to do with weapons work, just pure science.

How Obama can be contemplating cutting funding for Basic Science at the National Lab IN HALF is completely beyond me. I guess that shows the real meaning of "We will restore science to its rightful place."

Anonymous said...

Ok- this brings up section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act (1993) for RIF guidelines and requirments. In there,

(c) Objectives.--In preparing the plan required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall be guided by the following objectives:

(1) Changes in the work force at a Department of Energy defense nuclear facility--

(A) should be accomplished so as to minimize social and economic impacts;

(B) should be made only after the provision of notice of such changes not later than 120 days before the commencement of such changes to such employees and the communities in which such facilities are located; and

(C) should be accomplished, when possible, through the use of retraining, early retirement, attrition, and other options that minimize layoffs.

Does section A open possible litigation avenues for recovering the housing losses? Considering the $T's being spent, buying all the RA in LA is a drop in the bucket. Class Action suit? Just wondering.

Anonymous said...

Blame Obama and people who voted for him all you want, but this has been coming down the pipe for a long time. We would have seen cuts under a McCain presidency, too.

The death sentence at the lab was written 15+ years ago when the management did not look forward to the end of nuclear weapons work and plan accordingly to move into other areas and actively court support in DC for this lab.

I'm sorry that the Administration is so short-sited to cut non-weapons funding as well. But the fact is we are not the only national lab that can do energy research and the overhead rates make it almost impossible to do work for others in Gov't. The country is in a huge mess and tough decisions must be made. LANL is not critical to national defense and does have a fee structure to be cost effective for green energy research or other work. It and many other places like it will have to go for the country to survive this economic free-fall we're in.

If the intent is to eventually shut the lab down, then I would prefer DC to be honest with the remaining staff here. Give workers the ability to move and find work. Give those close to retirement a chance to plan their exit. Do not leave the 20K people at Sandia and LANL hanging on to false hope.

Anonymous said...

This is congress saying to DOE, "You guys are not doing your job. We have better uses for our taxpayers' dollars." Maybe they should consider laying off NNSA workers since they appear to be worthless.

Anonymous said...

This is the end,
Beautiful friend.

Anonymous said...

"Who was the memo to and who wrote it? Damn Fleck and all his unnecessary secrecy! :)"

Based on the summary statement in the "Nuclear Weapons & Materials Monitor", this seems to be in the form of NNSA 2010 Budget Guidance:

http://www.exchangemonitor.com/publications/current_toc/toc_nuc_weap.pdf

Anonymous said...

When Tom Udall and Mike Anastasio came out recently and said "this lab's future looks bright", they were mis-understood by Los Alamos and lab employees.

What they meant was the community of Los Alamos would be "bright" because all the bankrupt employees will be forced to burn down their homes to get out from under their mortgages and leave town. Two years from today, Los Alamos is going to look worse than Flint, Michigan! Boarded up homes will be the norm and downtown will be a ghost town.

Aren't you glad you voted Democratic in the last election? Isn't it cool that Obama is our new President? Won't it be fun trying to survive at LANL with greatly reduced weapons funding, greatly reduced non-weapons funding and only half the LDRD rate allowed on the shrinking funds that are left?

It's becoming pretty clear by now that Obama and his new Democratic Congress intend to kill this place off. It's an anti-nuke activist's wildest wet dream come true.

Anonymous said...

If there is any way that you can swing it, now would be an excellent time to grab a job at one of the DOE energy labs. Unlike the NNSA labs, most of the DOE energy labs are still run by the non-profits. They will be infused with massive amounts of new funding, while LANL and LLNL are clearly going to be starved of funding and slowly die off.

With Domenici out of the picture, I fear that the weak NM Democratic caucus will be helpless to stop what is coming. Domenici's forecast of 2000 layoffs at LANL may not be too far off the mark. Some job stimulus, huh?

Anonymous said...

As someone said before, "It had to end sometime." The United States had a pretty good run, and we had a sweet life compared to the rest of the world. What do you suppose life will be like under our new future leaders from China, or Russia, or possibly even the Taliban?

Anonymous said...

I guess there's no reason left for LANL staff to be needing those travel laptops any longer.

Anonymous said...

Obama - America's Neville Chamberlain

Anonymous said...

No RRW...bottom line. I can only assume the LDRD has been pitched to the people who have drafted this memo that much of the LDRD funding is supporting advanced concepts for RRWs.

The labs will continue to push for Life Extension Programs, modifications, alterations, etc. for the existing stockpile that will look much like the RRWs. I suppose the administration and the current set of law makers will kill that as well.

Other nations with nuclear weapons have already very quietly gone or are actively going through an RRW / modernization of their nuclear stockpile. Russia was in fact very upfront about there efforts on this front - they would be complete idiots to NOT fully and aggressively support the administrations desire for a massive arms reduction treaty and leave us with crap for a nuclear arsenal and no ability to build one. If this administration has its way, we will not only have a very limited and outdated nuclear deterrent, we will not have the ability, should the global situation demand, the infrastructure or knowledge to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons. Taking us down this track is very irresponsible and I don’t think the people in power are thinking this out very well. We can only hope some parental supervision steps in and can get us off this very dangerous track.

Anonymous said...

When the LANL RIFs hit, I propose that LANS start by laying off those employees with the Obama stickers plastered all over their cars. They voted for this, so let them have what they wanted... a lost job!

Anonymous said...

Interestingly enough, LLNL has recently announced internally a shift to seven key mission areas for that lab;

* Weapons and defense science
* Nuclear counterterrorism and forensics
* Cyber and space security and intelligence
* Biosecurity
* Regional climate modeling and impacts
* LIFE (Laser Inertial Confinement Fusion-Fission Energy)
* Advanced laser optical systems and applications

They seem to be positioning themselves for a future mission portfolio without much nuclear weapons design work/funding in it.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry, my MARIE project will safe us!

- Terry Wallace

Anonymous said...

I guess it all depends what they are targeting on "pit expansion."
If its killing CMRR and pit capability (e.g upgrade projects), and leaving pit manufacturing alone, then I think LANL can weather the storm. RRW was already dead. If Obama and his retard staff decide to zero out pit manufacturing all together, then you will see a lot of people out of jobs. I don't think LANL can absorb that many FTEs.

I thought Obama was Mr Science so this is dumb move to cut LDRD funding in half.

I have no faith in Udall and Bingaman to pull NM out of this shit storm.

Anonymous said...

Just when you thought morale at LANL couldn't possibly get any lower, it drops another notch. I've been associated with LANL for about 30 years and never seen anything like this current situation.

Anonymous said...

My 2 cents. I think the new administration could get more bang for its buck by killing PDCF- a $3 billion construction project at SRS. This work could undoubtedly be done at LANL for 1/4 the cost.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 2/14/09 1:23 PM writes that s/he thinks that "much of the LDRD funding is supporting advanced concepts for RRWs."

That is entirely incorrect. While it is certainly true the some of the LDRD funding goes to new ideas in support of the weapons program, the majority of the funding goes for scientific projects.

Anonymous said...

"2/14/09 1:23 PM"

Hear, hear!

Anonymous said...

If major cuts or outright closure do come to LANL, I hope that all the LANL yet anti-LANL bloggers here realize their part in it.

I also hope all of the Los Alamos Study Group people understand their role too.

All the people constantly bitching and complaining about the lab, who fought the drug testing in spite of the incidents showing the problem, all of the people complaining about how put out they were to verify property, etc. All the whiners. I hope you all understand that your efforts never went unnoticed.

You people were cited and quoted whenever there was a reason to bash LANL.

And now you worry about your houses and look to find someone else to blame? May I suggest a mirror?

Anonymous said...

Over $800 billion in stimulus spending to save jobs as quickly as possible, and yet the Obama Administration plans cutbacks which will induce layoffs of high tech jobs at our government owned national security labs!

I don't get it?

Anonymous said...

"All the whiners. I hope you all understand that your efforts never went unnoticed." (2:11 PM)

Glad you appreciated our efforts... asshole! We did it all for you, or more to the point, we did it because of people like you!

Anonymous said...

I don't get it?

2/14/09 2:28 PM


This stuff currently coming out of the Obama administration sounds strange, but consider this:

Obama needs to find money to help cover for government supplemental mortgage payments. Yes, that's right. Your government is about to construct a new welfare program in which the government will be paying off part of the mortgage each month for people who bought houses that were beyond their means. Here is the best part, though. Before you can get on this new welfare program, you have to stop paying your mortgage for a few months. Got that? Your government is going to incentivize people to become deadbeats!!!

You can be sure that once these people start getting this monthly mortgage welfare (to the tune of around $500 per month), they'll show their gratitude by voting Democratic for the rest of their lives. The large group of filthy rich millionaires currently living in Los Alamos need not apply for this program. It's probably going to be carefully targeted for only select regions of the country that have the capability to swing important elections.

That's change you can believe in! I suspect it won't take long for the glow and good vibes around Obama to start wearing thin with a large portion of this nation's citizenry.

Anonymous said...

What does Dr. Chu have to say about all these LANL cuts?

Oh, wait a minute, I forget.

Dr. Chu recused himself from all financial matters having to do with the UC labs!

Anonymous said...

"You people were cited and quoted whenever there was a reason to bash LANL." - 2:11 PM

You are confusing cause and effect, 2:11 PM.

This blog and all the "whiners" you speak of are not the causes. They are but the symptoms.

To find the causes, look upward through the management chain. The higher up you go, the closer you will come to the causes that generate the symptoms.

What part of this chain do you sit upon, 2:11 PM?

Anonymous said...

Obama this, Obama that. I guess he must have masterminded all those years of deficit spending under the last administration. What great power did he have to prevent the Republicans from finding 40 votes for fiscal probity in the Senate all those years? And to convince those titans of finance to lend to people buying homes beyond their means. Maybe he slipped something into their champagne during the $500,000 birthday parties?

No single thing created this mess and no single thing is going to clean it up. Take a deep breath and hang on for the long haul.

Anonymous said...

A largely production based "lab" doesn't need a basic science program like LDRD. Oh, wait, they're planning to cut the production side, too.

Yeah... we're screwed!

Anonymous said...

"That's change you can believe in! I suspect it won't take long for the glow and good vibes around Obama to start wearing thin with a large portion of this nation's citizenry."

It will be interesting to see of he follows along a similar path to Bush's approval rating.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1063/bush-and-public-opinion

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the time has come where whining and accusing management has little purpose. Try to realize, for example, that a much more legitimate
research organization, that was productive at a far lower cost than LANL was shut down. That was Bell Laboratories.
It was only pork barrel politics that created the long-running unproductive organization that is failing now, Even the weapons portion of LANL would have long shut down if the DOD paid for nuclear weapons out of it's own budget.

Anonymous said...

Obama is doing the same thing to morale at the weapons laboratories that he has done to the stock market.

Anonymous said...

4:23 is absolutely correct:
"It was only pork barrel politics that created the long-running unproductive organization that is failing now"

The fact is that LANL has no support from political types. The republicans hate us because our programs are often pork at it's worst (e.g. DARHT's 1000% cost overrun) and democrats hate us because we make bombs. The only support we could possibly have would come from folks who ache for a new cold war, the neoconservatives who aren't real popular these days.

Anonymous said...

2/14/09 3:39 PM

Gen. Leslie R. Groves was right in his decision to select Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer to be the scientific leader of the Manhattan Project, despite the fact that he didn´t have any Nobel Prize, but Steven Chu does, but he lacks a common sense view of nukes, and their support during a transition period between DOE/NNSA to DoD in charge of the NWC (this bold move is unfortunately blocked by Congress), and as a consequence, a further lowering of the morale, especially at LANL and LLNL, that is already low by LANS, LLNS, and DOE/NNSA, as well as a narrow (bad, weak) understanding of national security within the Obama administration, whether it´s nukes that they don´t support with funding and RRW, or their naive worldview in general, which is dangerous to US, especially to be soft on Islamic terrorism, with the closing??? of Guantanamo, and soft towards Iran, or any potential adversary against US.

Short summary: The Obama administration has a political correctness understanding of nukes, and a political correctness worldview in general, that clearly weaken US national security, with the future risk of destroying the US nuclear umbrella.

Anonymous said...

More info than what is in Fleck's excellent article can be found by going to Google and searching on this phrase:

"OMB AIMS TO BOOST NONPROLIFERATION FUNDING, GUT RRW PROGRAM"

It will display a link to the article over at the site: defensenewstand.com.

Use the Google "cache" setting to actually read it. I would post it here, but it is clearly marked as "no reproduction".

The article has lots of details about the OMB and what they want done with the NNSA budget going out for several years. This article was written by "Inside the Pentagon".

Bottom line is that the non-proliferation budget is set to undergo expansion, but slowly:

$160 million in FY-11,
$320 million in FY-12,
$480 million in FY-13,
$640 million in FY-14,
$800 million in FY-15,
$815 million in FY-16,
$831 million in FY-17,
$846 million in FY-18,
$862 million in FY-19.

The OMB has also warned NNSA that these funds *cannot* be shifted to pay for other priorities. Of course, this expansion in fundng is going to happen slowly, and in the interim, you can read between the lines and figure out that any big cuts in the tradition weapons budget are likely to result in a lot of layoffs between FY09 and FY19!

The demand that LDRD be cut in half (from an 8% tax on incoming funds to 4%) is so that the NNSA labs will be kept to the same limits of LDRD funding as the rest of the DOE labs.

Anonymous said...

That "Inside the Pentagon" reports says that the NNSA should (a) cut LANCSE funding, (b) consider cutting the amount of overhead, and (c) eliminate construction projects that have failed to meet their milestones.

Does that mean that DARHT is now on the chopping block? Will NIF be taken to completion? It certainly means that any more expansion of CMR is not going to happen (i.e., no "pit" factory). It would seem to indicate that Terry's bright idea for MARIE is now up in smoke, at the very least. Does it also mean that LANS will be forced to finally reduce overhead and lower the extreme TSM FTE labor rates?

Stay tuned. This could get interesting.

Anonymous said...

Let's see why this is non-news:

-The RRW is already dead. 'Cancelling' it is like canceling nothing.

- We can make pits now. Not expanding that would leave us with the capability we have now.

- Not upgrading LANSCE would leave us with the capability we have now.

- Is LDRD at LANL really the most efficient and appropriate way to fund and conduct basic research?

- LANL just took delivery of Roadrunner. Q didn't work well and cost a pile to run...but LLNL and SNL have working supercomputers. A delay there won't be helping, but won't kill them much more than bagging LANSCE and pit production expansion.

- CMR is failing and is incredibly expensive to maintain required safety and security envelopes. CMRR is still needed...analytical chemistry and materials science is necessary for the LANL missions.

- The republican-dominated past Congress and Administration increased our costs 15 times to steer taxpayer dollars from workers at LANL performing the mission to Bechtel and manager bonuses. Bechtel is a 'good friend' of the politicians, and its ~80% cut of the award fee has to be paid for by someone!

It's all good politics: after all, his campaign contributions are worth more than workers' votes!

The Skeptic said...

OK, LANL lies to regulators and to the public, can't keep track of its equipment or data, and spews nuclear material into the environment and at its employees and contractors.

I do not trust LANL with an Erlenmeyer flask and a bunsen burner, much less with nuclear material. Why should my good tax dollars continue to be poured after bad?

LANL did great and important and even heroic work for generations. But corrupt, inefficient and incompetent management has tarnished that legacy. Only if LANL can somehow prove both that you are poised for work needed TODAY and that LANL is the institution with the talent, will and skill to do that work should we continue to fund it.

Anonymous said...

Well, let's think about great development option after the shutdown:

.) an "Atomic Resort" with golf course paid by the San Ildefonso Pueblo,
.) an open-air museum,
.) a "Mad Scientist" film studio,
.) Ed's art display with his two obelisks towering above artistically arranged Black Hole junk?

Anonymous said...

The LANL Weapons Directorate will shrink.
The Threat Reduction Directorate will grow.

The only question is whether this happen in a balanced fashion, or will the cuts on the Weapons Directorate side happen so quickly that layoffs are required.

I can envision a lot of scientists over in X Division frantically trying to jump ship and get into TR as quickly as possible. Same goes for anyone involved with weapons engineering. You do not want to be working in the Weapons Directorate as time goes on if you value your job at LANL.

Anonymous said...

Does this mean I don't have to pee in the cup anymore?

Anonymous said...

"Why should my good tax dollars continue to be poured after bad?"

Why not? You spewed a lot of rhetoric and no info to back up your claims. Regarding waste of tax payer money, lets look closer to home and the $780 billion stimulus bill that COngress just passed and Obama will sign TUesday. Talking about a waste of tax payer dollars! Oink Oink my good man.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 2/14/09 5:29 PM writes:

Bottom line is that the non-proliferation budget is set to undergo expansion, but slowly:

$160 million in FY-11,
$320 million in FY-12,
$480 million in FY-13,
$640 million in FY-14,
$800 million in FY-15,
$815 million in FY-16,
$831 million in FY-17,
$846 million in FY-18,
$862 million in FY-19.

ARE YOU MAKING THIS SHIT UP?

THIS IS CRAZY!

Anonymous said...

Nobody even knows where this shit (the "memo") came from but everybody will use it as a launching point for his/her favorite political, LANS-hating, nuke-hating, or doomsday scenario. What a cluster! You guys are all sick! Don't you have something (or somebody) better to do on Valentine's Day?

Anonymous said...

Related to "OMB Aims to Boost Nonproliferation Funding, Gut RRW Funding" is "Notion of Folding NNSA into DOD Faces Resistance on Capitol Hill."

(defensenewsstand.com)

Anonymous said...

2/14/09 9:42 AM

You may leave any time you want

Anonymous said...

How long will it be before we get a reaction from Mikey to the latest memo? March 6th. is just around the corner!

Anonymous said...

2/14/09 9:46 AM

Late breaking news. Your republican pal, Bush, had eight years to make it happen...it didn't.

Anonymous said...

I don't think this effort is working. Well, we might have halted Mexico & Bangladesh - so far.

Huh? The new administration is how old? I guess you are one of those republicans who want instant gratification.

Anonymous said...

Cutting LDRD while expecting the weapons laboratories to branch out is nonsense. This shows the stupidity of Obama and his Democrat Congress.

Your confused. This was Bush's approach.

Anonymous said...

2/14/09 11:55 AM

Well said.

Anonymous said...

2/14/09 12:28 PM

We are in the worst financial crisis since the great depression and all brought to you by Bush and his republican congress. You seem to be confused.

Anonymous said...

"ARE YOU MAKING THIS SHIT UP? THIS IS CRAZY!" (7:38 PM)

No, I am not making this up. This is the OMB's current projection for growth in the NNSA non-proliferation budget. If you go to Google and query via the name of the article and follow the "cache" link, you'll see the same figures.

Though the article doesn't say so, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the weapons side of the house gets reduce by a like amount for each of the outlying year. The mood in the new Congress is such that it is unlikely that the NNSA weapons funding will remain at current levels.

Bottom line is that the growth area at the nuclear labs will be non-proliferation. Most of this non-proliferation money will be coming into the three NNSA labs and not to the rest of the NNSA complex. By FY2012 (the last year of Obama's 1st term), each of the labs could expect to see an extra $100 million in funding if the money is split 3 ways (LANL, LLNL and SNL). However, that point is 4 years off in the future.

The budgetary CR supposedly forestalled cuts of about $400 million from hitting the LANL weapons budget this year. Even with a growing non-proliferation budget, LANL may still be in deep budgetary trouble during the next few years.

******

"
- Not upgrading LANSCE would leave us with the capability we have now.

- Is LDRD at LANL really the most efficient and appropriate way to fund and conduct basic research?

- LANL just took delivery of Roadrunner. "

(5:43 PM)


Trying to put a smiley face on this clusterf*ck, are we, 5:43 PM?

* With no additional LANCSE funding, LANL's major hope for a new growth project to fill the void.. MARIE.. will be snuffed out.

* I doubt we will see anything in terms of new funding to make up for the 50% cut in LDRD, so basic science will be hard hit. This will undoubtedly cause some of the "best and brightest" to either leave LANL in disgust or be laid off.

* Yes, LANL just took deliver of Roadrunner, but their is more work to be done on the hardware side. And, again, as with the LDRD cuts, the message for the "best and brightest" at LANL will be clear. Funding in this area may be tough to come by.

Given this outlook, LANL and LLNL may continue to decline. You can try to rationalize it in any way you like, but the outcome does not look particularly bright. Any RIFs during the next year or two will only quicken the collapse of what's left of science at the NNSA labs.

Anonymous said...

It's beginning to look like Tom D'Agostino's Complex Transformation plans are going to require radical modifications if this new President and Congress have their way with the budget. Not only is RRW completely dead, but any push to revitalize the production side of the complex or grow any weapons related work are also going to be scaled way back.

Anonymous said...

"When Tom Udall and Mike Anastasio came out recently and said "this lab's future looks bright", "

You must have misheard, I believe it was "This lab's future suffers from blight"

Anonymous said...

"We are in the worst financial crisis since the great depression and all brought to you by Bush and his republican congress."

That'd be a great comment except the Congress has been Democratic for the past 2 1/2 years. Lots of stuff to show for that, huh, considering NO Bush vetoes??

Anonymous said...

Why are you all so surprised that Democrats would cut basic science at the National lab by 50%? After all, their historical record on supporting science is worse than that of Republicans. Really.

Check out, for example, Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats?

Hey, Obama, we know how you like to TALK about supporting science. Want to actually prove it?

Anonymous said...

"Huh? The new administration is how old? I guess you are one of those republicans who want instant gratification.
2/14/09 8:37 PM"

What was I thinking :(

With $300+ Bil/yr NP funding, I do think there's a good chance Obama can deter Mexico & Bangladesh from acquiring Nukes. Perhaps, even as early as 2012 :)

Anonymous said...

"Late breaking news. Your republican pal, Bush, had eight years to make it happen...it didn't."

No so fast. Let's give credit where credit is due - such as the Democratic controlled Congress.

Anonymous said...

What are our brats John Pedicini and Joe Smartz gonna do now? They can come over to waste management to help us clean up the mess they made. What a fitting way to end your careers. The problem I had with Plutonium and RRW is that we these overconfident, zealous, self-enterprising cry-babies behind these projects. John, it was never tested, get over it! Turn out the lights the night is over....

Anonymous said...

We need another forest fire!

Anonymous said...

From 10:19 PM ..."* With no additional LANCSE funding, LANL's major hope for a new growth project to fill the void.. MARIE.. will be snuffed out."

Oh, fear not, we will just have more town hall and planning meetings to waste staff members time on a pipe dream. I actually have lost a lot of respect for John Sarrao. I thought he was smarter than that - he has been "planning" MaRIE for 2 years now. No check and not a shovel in the ground. What happens when Mikey and Co. move on in the next few months? Is the new gang going to buy into this virual-never-to-materialize facility?

Anonymous said...

Why hasn't this story hit Abq Journal (not just Journal North insert) or the New Mexican?

Why should the Sandians have a good, worry-free weekend?

Anonymous said...

Under this pathetic excuse for an economic plan called the stimulus bill, we'll all, not just Los Alamos but all over the country, soon be standing on the street corner with our hats held out wearing a sign that says "SPARE CHANGE we can believe in".

Anonymous said...

I would get more from these comments if most of them did not come across as "Two hands full of gimme, Mouth full of much obliged" Tom Rush, late '60s.

No one ever wants to do anything, just blame others for not doing something.

Sad.

And playing directly into the hands of those who want to diminish LANL.

Anonymous said...

Lay me off, I'll just go on welfare and the Govt. can pay for my housing now to. No worries...the Dems are in charge, I'll have my handout please.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that nobody has yet mentioned that cutting LDRD in half amounts to an instant and sizeable reduction in our overhead rate. This will make us more competitive for future WFO projects.

We also have been comparing LANL to Sandia and bemoaning the fact that LANL has not more effectively diversified. Well, one difference is that Sandia deliberately targets its LDRD spending toward positioning the lab for maximum future programmatic opportunities. LANL, on the other hand, deliberately targets its LDRD spending to obtain the maximum numer of high-profile peer reviewed publications.

If we want to become more like Sandia, then we need to accept that LANL must shift away from valuing discovery research "for its own sake" (while paying mere lip service to potential applications) and placing more importance on the basic research that is truly foundational to our programmatic missions, current and future.

This would, of course, be easier if senior management had any clear strategic direction other than "maximize fee."

In any case, it is ludicrous to suggest that LDRD has historically been used as an effective means to develop our external funding base. Only a tiny fraction of LDRD projects in the past decade have even remotely served the goal of diversifying our funding base or of enhancing our existing program activities. The vast majority of LDRD funds have gone to support a small cadre of scientists who have sucessfully perfected the science of writing LDRD proposals.

I will finally note that a similar cut to LDRD in FY2000 resulted in the first-ever engagement of some technical staff members in programmatic activities, by deliberately converting some of the recovered overhead into new direct-funded programmatic R&D.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you, 10:51. Take, for example, 11:14, the next post after yours.

If that isn't a perfect example of crybaby, "it's not my fault" whining, I'm sure we get one that is more perfect before this post fades away.

There are reasons that LANL is on the chopping block. And it's not because of the "nasty, liberal Democrats".

LANL is on the chopping block because it has outlived its usefulness.

It's inefficient.

It's expensive.

It's being run by a corrupt Limited Liability Corporation.

It's management is ineffective.

It's staff are mediocre -- the best have long gone.

It's mission has devolved to "Give us money, and we will try to keep all of our safety and security fuck-ups out of the headlines so that we get our LANS, LLC annual $79 million award fee each year for as many years as we can keep squeezing that big, fat tit.



Ok, let the whining resume now.

Anonymous said...

"Now aren't all you liberals glad that you voted for "change"?"

ABSOLUTELY!!!!

Anonymous said...

2/15/09 10:51 AM Please kindly post your list of efforts you did to support the lab, other than blaming everyone else doing nothing.

Anonymous said...

"Oh, fear not, we will just have more town hall and planning meetings to waste staff members time on a pipe dream." - 9:29 AM

How much money was wasted at LANL over this last year with endless brain-storming sessions involving project growth, planning sessions for the next "Geat Challenge", and workshops related to vague ideas on how to diversify the project base at LANL. Lots of staff put in time for this stuff, but what do we have to show for it? Not much.

LANL needs some seasoned Program Managers who have a proven track record of growing new projects. In tandem with this, LANL needs to reduce the cost of doing business at the lab for non-weapons related projects. Until these two items are accomplished, LANL has little hope of diversifying its project base.

Does anyone left at LANL seriously think these two critical items will ever happen given our current LANS management? Probably not.

Anonymous said...

"Does anyone left at LANL seriously think these two critical items will ever happen given our current LANS management?"

Of course not. What incentive would LANS have to devote any effort to this? Developing WFO is not in their contract with NNSA. The amount of their award fee doesn't depend on bringing in non-NNSA work. NNSA does not want LANL to be doing WFO -- they found it "distracting" to what they thought LANL should be focusing on, years ago when there was an appreciable WFO component to LANL's budget.

In fact, the amount of LANS' award fee dosn't depend on how many staff are employed by LANL. From the LLC's point of vew, the fewer staff at LANL, the better. Fewer security incidents. Fewer safety incidents. Same award fee each year.

Anonymous said...

Well the liberals democrats and those with their handouts voted for the Obamantor to distribute the wealth and to make us all equal. It looks like socialism has finally been implemented. Welcome to the new world order and next will be the one world currency. It is what it is, so I guess it'a back to basics and the end of a once great nation.

Anonymous said...

OMB seems upset that DOE energy labs only hit up incoming funds with a 4% tax to pay for LDRD, while the NNSA labs have a much higher 8% tax rate.

Here's one solution. Since the NNSA labs deal with something that is not present at the energy labs (nuclear weapons production, cleanup and research work), split the LDRD tax rate on all incoming funds at LANL.

Let non-weapons projects, which are more like the projects at the DOE energy labs, pay exactly what the DOE energy labs pay, a 4% LDRD tax rate.

Let the weapons side pay a higher tax rate, say 12%.

Justify this by the fact that the weapons work (pit production, weapons engineering, cleanup, etc) tends to take the focus away from doing basic science at the NNSA labs, so these projects needs to make up for this scientific "damage" by paying a higher LDRD tax rate.

Voila, problem solved! Of course, I expect that the people working on the weapons side of the budget at LANL will not like this idea. These are also the same people who call most of the shots at the lab.

Anonymous said...

The big problem with WFO is that you have a customer who actually wants some work done for the funds provided. This is not consistent with a work-free safe and secure place.

Anonymous said...

To 2/14/09- 9:03: I am neither democrat or republican. However, I am amazed how the Republicans are constantly crying that the liberals are responsible for the mess the country is in as well as how having voted for Obama will now be the end of LANL. I would just like to remind some on this subject that under Bush and the Republican Congress for eight and a half of the last ten years have resulted in the mess we find ourselves in now! Some will say it was Clinton, etc that started the problems- maybe it was; but having said that did not the Congress controlled by the Republicans and Bush have years to put it right? Was not it the Congress under Bush who put LANS in charge? I cannot think of one single aspect of our society that Bush and his Congress has not messed up big time to a degree unseen by the country. The Republicans are screaming that the stimulus package is not the right thing to do at this time- too much money etc. Did not the same Republicans put King Paulson in charge of the first part of the last package? Paulson who just gave out funds to whom he deemed acceptable without any means of accounting for the funds? Having said that is not it time to stop pointing fingers and for just once work together for LANL.

Anonymous said...

"...weapons work...tends to take the focus away from doing basic science at the NNSA labs"

And that is the attitude problem that has destroyed LANL.

Try doing some work before asking the country to pay for your sandbox.

Anonymous said...

Yes, 12:27 and so much more. Republicans here remember that last two years of Bush there was Democratic majority in Congress (even this is not entirely true, bc in the Senate there was no majority, and Bush was constantly talking about vetoing any initiatve of Dems, whch would be, as usual supported by all Reps, so veto was protected), but forget that most of Clinton years Reps controled the Congress, and, in particular, invented Wen-Ho-Lee case, which unfortunately Richardson was stupid enough to bite. And under Bush reps constantly raped LANL. Bush's great supporter in California, Gerald Parsky was for years (appointed by republican governor of California, Pete Wilson)overseeing LANL as a UC regent, and appointing everywhere he could all these admirals, including our beloved Nanos. Then under Bush we got LANS, etc. In the meantime Bush started wars under false pretences and redistribution of national wealth to his cronies, destroying environment and ignoring all scientists' voices against it, or forcing other scientists to support his anti-environment initiatives, and you reps still have face to open your mouths? Dems are not saints, but reps should go to hell. Bad that LANL is probably deadly wounded by them.

Anonymous said...

"Try doing some work before asking the country to pay for your sandbox."

2/15/09 1:04 PM

Wow! It only took one hour before someone placed a post denigrated the scientists doing basic science at LANL as somehow being shiftless and lazy. That has got to be some type of record for this blog.

No, it is not the basic science side of LANL that is destroying this lab. Close minded attitudes about both basic science and the non-weapons work at LANL is a big part of what is helping to destroy this lab.

LANL needs an enormous cultural shift to take place if it is to survive and thrive. Poster 1:04 PM leads more credence to belief that this cultural shift will never take place.

Anonymous said...

2/15/09 11:58 AM wrote "From the LLC's point of vew, the fewer staff at LANL, the better. Fewer security incidents. Fewer safety incidents. Same award fee each year."

OK, that is it. the biggest security incident last year was executed by Neu and her husband Runde. It has been covered up and people threatened so that nobody dares mention anything. Gee, sounds like the John Mitchell security infraction.

Anonymous said...

12:27 pm: You seem to be under the impression that Congress works for, or "under" the President. The President heads the Executive, not the Legislative Branch. Your comments are so biased and misleading on so many levels that I'll choose just one to respond to. Yes, the Republicans put Paulson in charge. The fact that there were no controls, metrics, or accountability is the fault of the legislation passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress.

Anonymous said...

If the SEC had been doing their jobs, some of financial crisis facing our country would have been avoided. If DOE (NNSA) had been doing their jobs, many of the problems that LANL are facing now, would have also been avoided. Your management at LANL is really no different than the managers of some of the wall street firms. If they can outsmart their regulators, they will and most often do.

Anonymous said...

Let me add some highlights on Gerald Parsky, a regent at UC, overseeng for many years LANL and LLNL (some more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Parsky).
He has received appointments from each of the past five Republican administrations. Among others, under last Bush he was a member of President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security, which recommended that part of Social Security should be private accounts depending on the market. How nice would we feel if this part of our retirement were also eaten up now? Of course he was an "organizer for then-Governor George W. Bush of Texas during the primary of 2000 and finally as the Bush-Cheney California Chairman in both 2000 and 2004".

Closer to home:
"Parsky is identified as having headed a group, the "Parsky Commission", that compiled a list of replacements for those US Attorneys fired by Gonzales. "

and very close to home:
"Parsky also heads up the Board that oversaw the 2005 privatization of Los Alamos National Laboratories to a group headed by Bechtel executives"

The brilliant career went to some problems when "he came under scrutiny for his efforts to change the UC Retirement System by leading the charge to ease out a publicly employed manager in the early part of the decade in favor of work by an array of highly paid fund managers. In the process, the UC Retirement fund has gone from one in which members did not need to pay to one in which they will be asked to make contributions for the first time since 1990 (see this link for more information). Parsky was forced out in 2006 after a series of newspaper articles describing funding scandals and a lax conformity to University of California hiring and compensation rules."
Problems, but not to an end, "Gerald Parsky serves as Chairman of Aurora Capital Group".

Anonymous said...

Could you elaborate, 1:38?

Anonymous said...

More of 2:03 at
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/parsky_s_party/Content?oid=426427

Perhaps the privatization of LANL and LLNL was just a trick invented to cover up UC regents' (including in a leading role Gerald Parsky) politically and ideologically motivated (yes, it was republican ideology) ruining of once superb UC retirement plan?

Anonymous said...

2/15/09 12:27 PM

This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat thing, overspending by BOTH Democrat and Republican controlled governments has been the norm. Bush was responsible for about 45% of the 10 trillion dollar national debt, an average rate of a little over 0.5 trillion per year during his tenure. But a large fraction of that debt accumulation was caused simply by having to pay the interest on the 5trillion in debt that had already accumulated by the time Bush took office. This is no different than maxing out your credit card; soon you can only afford the minimum payment and your debt balloons.


With the economic stimulus bill, Obama's budget, as of this morning, is projected to have a TWO TRILLION dollar annual shortfall. If the problem is overspending leading to an unmanageable debt, HOW IN THE WORLD WILL INCREASING THE SPENDING RATE HELP? The stimulus bill is sheer lunacy. That's what conservatives, both Republicans and Democrats, are railing about. Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget office is predicting that Democratic economic recovery plan will have negative (i.e. not positive) economic consequences in the mid- to long term.

The last time the US paid down the debt was under a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. I only hope that this split government gets restored in two years and people vote for fiscal conservatives, both Democratic and Republican.

Anonymous said...

1:38 pm: "Gee, sounds like the John Mitchell security infraction."

What? In the sense that it never actually happened?

Anonymous said...

And for those who think that McCain would be better than Obama:
http://blog.4president.org/2008/2007/03/gerald_parsky_s.html

"GERALD PARSKY STANDS WITH SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN
California Leader Supports Fiscal Conservatism & Spending Discipline

ARLINGTON, VA – U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today announced that Gerald Parsky will support the Arizona Senator’s presidential candidacy. In addition, Parsky will serve as senior economic advisor to Senator McCain’s presidential campaign.

Parsky spoke to Senator McCain’s fiscal conservatism and commitment to spending discipline. “John McCain has been a trailblazer in the Senate in fighting frivolous government spending and bringing budgets under control,” said Parsky. “I am honored to support his efforts to establish pro-growth economic policies, while reducing spending and the size of government.”

Senator John McCain said that having Gerald Parsky’s leadership and support will be an invaluable asset. “Gerry has a remarkable public service record and keen understanding of economic policy,” said Senator McCain. “Having his support means a lot to me personally, and I look forward to his advice and counsel as we move forward in this campaign.” "

Anonymous said...

2:40 --

"What? In the sense that it never actually happened?"

No, in the sense that it happened, and was successfully covered up by LANS.

Anonymous said...

"Now aren't all you liberals glad that you voted for "change"?"

Yip, everytime Obama speaks I have to change my underware.

Anonymous said...

"The last time the US paid down the debt was under a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. I only hope that this split government gets restored in two years and people vote for fiscal conservatives, both Democratic and Republican."


"Life is complicated. The reason we have democracy is that no one side is right all the time. The only people who are dangerous are those who can’t admit, even to themselves, that obvious fact."
David Brooks

Anonymous said...

2:39-it was Clinton's decision to start paying off the debt, and it cost dems the control of congress. Reps in congress were then not that much in favor of what Clinton wanted, and were not presenting fiscal conservatism too much.

Your favorite republican fiscal conservatists were ruining the country under Bush and not at all worried that we were overspending, so why suddenly they would act differently? Only for political gain.
As far as the stimulus is concerned, it is basically impossible to do something entirely dfferent in such situation (when somebody is drowning, there is no time to debate how it would be better if he was not entering water knowing his very limited swimming abilities)the only thing is how you spread the money. Reps want to cut taxes for the riechest again, and this is the same what pushed us to this abyss, so why you think it is a responsible way to attack the crisis? Of course the question if dems at certain moment will behave responsibly, and this means in this situation increasing taxes, beginning from the riechest, and going down, when the recovery will kick.

Anonymous said...

3:19 pm, this is 2:39pm here.

You must be half retarded. Your argument in support of the stimulus bill amounts to nothing more than "we have to do something, anything, fast". So you throw a lead brick to the drowning swimmer? That's what this bill does, or couldn't you follow the simplest of arguments?

Oh, and your always convincing "Bad Republicans, bad Republicans" argument. But Congress was controlled by Democrats the last two years, wasn't it?

Read my lips, I'm not a Republican, I'm an Independent; I always vote for the fiscal conservative independent of party. Barring any acceptable candidate, I always vote to split power between the Democrats and Republicans as neither party seems capable of running the whole government by itself. Bush and the Republican Congress proved that. Obama and the Democratic Congress seem to be setting out on the same path as Bush, albeit perhaps at a steeper descent angle.

Anonymous said...

2/14/09 5:42 PM

"Does that mean that DARHT is now on the chopping block? Will NIF be taken to completion? It certainly means that any more expansion of CMR is not going to happen (i.e., no "pit" factory)...."

NIF was basically finished last week.

Anonymous said...

2/14/09 1:21 PM

"Obama - America´s Neville Chamberlain."

I agree 100%. I previously wrote, June 25, 2008:

If Barack Hussein Obama is elected the next US president, November 4, 2008, sworn in January 20, 2009, 12 PM (=12 Noon) EST, my predictions:

(1) He will severly hurt DOE/NNSA and the National labs.

(2) He will severly hurt DoD.

(3) He will NOT (99.99% certainty) execute a pre-emptive US strike against the nuclear weapons program in Iran. (He will leave the pre-emptive option (if president George W Bush doesn´t act against Iran), totally to Israel, and probably not support a future Israeli attack against Iran.)

(4) As a consequence, Israel will be isolated, and increasingly threatened by Iran, and their nuclear weapons ambition, as well as a weakened position of US power in the world.

(5) He will risk to be the 2nd term of president Jimmy Carter. (Jimmy Carter redux.)

(6) Obama is not only naive, he is VERY naive, with the consequence of increasing risks of future terrorist attacks against US, and the West in general.

(7) Obama doesn´t understand the concept of "Know thy enemy," especially when he says: "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct, presidential diplomacy with Iran without precondititions." (www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/)

(7.1) If a meeting between the President Obama and President Ahmadinejad occur, Obama risk to be the 21st Century version of Prime-Minister Chamberlain, e.g. to appease the enemy, i.e. Iran, and strengthen the power of Iran, and weaken US, and Israel, and the West in general.

(8) Obama has a Kantian worldview, i.e. idealistic worldview, as opposed to the Nietzschean worldview, i.e. "The will to power," thus its naivite.

(If Obama was a chessplayer - he would be easy to read, if he was a pokerplayer - he would be even easier to read, he can´t bluff.)

/---/

PS. The recent release of A.Q. Khan from house arrest make it clear that Pakistan is back in the nuclear proliferation business, Iran moving forward with their nuclear weapons program, a bridge in the Khyber Pass along the Pakistani-Afghanistani border that served as a supply line to US forces in Afghanistan is bombed by the Taliban, and the closing of US Air Force Base Manas in Kyrgyzstan which serves American forces in Afghanistan.

And the response from Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton was silence, total silence, e.g. the adversaries to US is moving forward whilst US is on the defensive, frankly, withdrawal from the world.

Anonymous said...

Panic and fear seems to have taken over this blog, too bad.

Under Bush/McCain and the Moscow Treaty the deployed stockpile was going to between 1700 and 2200... under Obama it will be renegotiated by Clinton/Gates to cut this by 50% (to 1000 to 1500).

So what if both Iran and North Korea went hog wild with their nuclear weapons production. Even if you combined as worst case the maximum produced and placed in their arsenals, you still could not justify the US returning to a NWC of the size that existed at the end of the Cold War in 1991.

LANL was a busy place in the 1950s, 60, and 70s as science was need to create new weapons concepts and implement new mission requirements from DOD. Today, politicians in Congress regardless of their strips, see nuclear weapons hardware issues as being "stead state" for the new 50 years. No new concepts and no new missions, just maintenance of what's already in the stockpile.

This is the reality - republican or democrat President - that LANL and NNSA faces. There is no peer or near peer on the horizon that will change this reality.

It reminds me of the debate and anger that existed in the US Cavalry command as horses were being phased out. So I looked on wikipedia to see how that ended for the US military...

"The last horse cavalry charge by a US Army cavalry unit took place against Japanese forces during the fighting in the Bataan Peninsula, Philippines, in the village of Morong on January 16, 1942, by the 26th Cavalry Regiment of the Philippine Scouts. Shortly thereafter, the besieged combined United States-Philippine forces were forced to slaughter their horses for food and the 26th Regiment fought on foot or in whatever scarce vehicles were available until their surrender."

I wonder if labs may end up being the horses of NNSA.

Anonymous said...

Is there any real downside to reducing LDRD by 50% or just getting rid of it altogether?

Anonymous said...

What is the downside of just getting rid of LDRD?

Anonymous said...

7:18 pm: "Is there any real downside to reducing LDRD by 50% or just getting rid of it altogether?"

Well, a significant number of very good scientists who only want to do their "own" research and pile up peer-reviewed publications (about 70% of which are accounted for at LANL by LDRD), will leave. According to your viewpoint, it will either be good or bad for LANL to lose these folks who don't really care that much about LANL's primary mission.

Anonymous said...

"According to your viewpoint, it will either be good or bad for LANL to lose these folks who don't really care that much about LANL's primary mission.

2/15/09 8:09 PM"

Ok I will bite, why would it be a bad? LANL should really focus on the core mission.

" pile up
peer-reviewed publications"

Can someone please explain how this this is relevant to LANL? Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for this stuff?

Anonymous said...

8:23 pm: "" pile up
peer-reviewed publications"

Can someone please explain how this this is relevant to LANL? Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for this stuff?"

You need to realize that the "taxpayer" pays for essentially all basic research in this country; LANL, university, etc. If you don't like this, then you need to advocate getting rid of the National Science Foundation, the DOE, DHS, DoD, and CDC basic research funding programs, etc. Is that really what you want?

Anonymous said...

2/15/09 8:23 PM

Because the "core mission", as you put it, changes in real time, as you can see. Good basic science remains good basic science, and forms the core of a Science Lab. In theory, that is. In practice, everybody from Obama's team, to NNSA pensil-pushers, to bonus-gobbling LANS managers are hard at work to level what's left of basic science in this place.

It's not that you can cleanly separate science into "mission relevant" and "frivolous". You either have good science, or you don't. If your institution does have a reputation for good science, good Ph.D. graduates won't come here to work on your "core mission", whatever it is.

What a smart manager would do is bring in the best scientists and then figure out how to apply them for the benefit of the "mission project" of the moment. That would be too smart for our managers, I realize that.

I pity the nation that cannot find room for good science at its national labs. Do you think it's going to stay competitive for much longer?

Anonymous said...

Speaking of LDRD cuts, I remember about four years ago when Congress demanded that LANL's then 6% LDRD tax rate had to be cut back to the DOE's standard 4% rate.

Sen. Domenici stepped in to the fray and when he was done not only was the LDRD rate not cut, but he saw to it that the LDRD rate was actually *raised* to 8%!

Let's see little Tommy Udall top that one.

Anonymous said...

3:19, 2:39 is a typical bully, who begins argument with an insult, and continues with ideological arguments rather than original thoughts, so "no matter what is the situation, my ideology is fiscal responsibility, and it has to be applied". Would it be also the case even if people were dying on the streets because of strict realization of this, in many circumstances reasonable, approach? And what is a recipe for the crisis of the "fiscally responsible"?

Anonymous said...

8:23 is probably one of those who feels entitled to get funding without any checkup, while 8:09 is used to what is going on in real-life science, where peer-reviewed publications are among most important indicators of good scientific work.
Aparently, LANL is seen as full of 8:23's and because of that it faces funding cuts. Is this indeed better for LANL as 8:23 suggests?

Anonymous said...

10:52, I assume you know this from the quotes around "raised" but for the benefit of the audience, please make sure everyone knows that the "increase" from 6 to 8% was to address a concern that LDRD was not paying into G&A like other programs. The difference went purely toward G&A in an overhead shell game.

Anonymous said...

2/16/09 1:30 AM, the RRW program was fully peer-reviewed, lab-to-lab and by external bodies.

Now - What sort of peer-review would you have recommended for CMRR, LANSCE-R, and TA-55 upgrades - the other projects that are called out for cancellation here? I mean in addition to the multiple (phased) design reviews, EIS comment periods, and general campaigning and negotiating for political support that's required for a line item project.

Sorry, dude. I've been involved in construction projects and I've spent my years doing basic science too. The cursory reading that the average peer-reviewer gives to a journal manuscript (in the absence of an ax to grind) is peanuts by comparison.

Anonymous said...

"Can someone please explain how this is relevant to LANL? Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for this stuff?"

Because a DOE Order, and annual Congressional appropriations (i.e. Federal law), say so.

Anonymous said...

I've been at LANL a long time and the reality is if LDRD is cut 50% the program overhead will not be reduced. The money will be re-directed to some management boondoggle.

Anonymous said...

Over one hundred comments on this thread, with the vast majority just relishing in the anti-koolaid they've been drinking for eons. And NO ONE thought to question the original source of this article?

Well, I happen to know this came from low-level OMB staffers, was issued without approval of their higher-ups, and was retracted within 48 hours. LANL management was all-over this as were NNSA and a coordinated effort of other sites.

Fleck is usually a pretty good journalist, but he should have checked with OMB public affairs before running this story as official administration policy.

So, sorry to burst the fantasy balloon of so many folks here, but why should I be surprised? Since the advent of blogs, folks have predicted the decline of LANL and the closure of the weapons program. Hasn't happened.

News flash. Other countries have nukes, value them, and we ain't getting rid of ours anytime soon.

Anonymous said...

Scary news, in the absence of context. May I provide some?

Following is a comparison of the FY09 DOE budget request to Congress, versus the FY10 OMB Passback just announced in the cited article. The OMB passback figures should be close to the DOE request, and in turn, given the current leadership of the Executive branch and Congress, the DOE request should be close to the final appropriation.

Weapons Activities (DP):
FY09 = $6.6B
FY10 = $6.3B

For reference, the current House mark for FY09 is $6.2B, Senate is $6.5B. Considering the term "falling off a cliff" has been used to describe the anticipated FY10 budget, it could be a lot worse.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (NN):
FY09 = $1.25B
FY10 = $2B

A huge increase. Note the current FY09 House mark for NN is $1.5B; Senate is $1.9B.

Naval Reactors:
FY09 = $0.8B
FY10 = $0.8B

Office of the Administrator:
FY09 = $0.4B
FY10 = $0.4B

A few other positive (or at least benign) notes from the Inside Defense NewsStand article:

- The Nonproliferation budget has been "fenced" by OMB, meaning NNSA can't redirect it in their appeal. And judging from the fact that the Senate and House both voted for increases in NN over the White House request in FY09, we can and should be planning for growth to occur here.

- The OMB has constrained plans to increase the W76 LEP production rates. This doesn't necessarily sound like a positive until you realize that pushing the throughput at the NWC plants would have also shifted the balance of DP funding that direction, and correspondingly away from the labs.

- "Stockpile certification" activities are also fenced by OMB. This is positive news for the NWC labs.

- RTBF operations and maintenance funds are protected, and the reference to "eliminating construction funding for projects that have failed to meet major milestones" is in the RTBF section. I believe DAHRT is currently funded out of DSW, not RTBF, so there are no implicit cuts to that facility.

Still, I can't quite fathom the cancellation of LANSCE-R. This is a bad stroke of news for LANL science, weapons and otherwise.

Anonymous said...

With this FY10 budget outlook, it appears like we'll be seeing no MARIE, less funding for weapons work, and many employees should consider running from the right side of the boat (weapons) over to the left side of the boat (non-proliferation).

This trend will become even more entrenched as non-proliferation budgets increase with each passing year and the traditional weapons budget continues to shrink.

Anonymous said...

The TR Directorate will not be growing with new employees, even though their funding will likely improve. Terry and company have worked out a system in which any additional work load for TR will be farmed out with Form-B.

In effect, the non-proliferation funding will be sub-contracted out to some of the non-TR staff on a limited time basis. This will allow TR to pull Form-B funding for any employees who cannot perform up to required standards.

If anyone at LANL thinks this new non-proliferation funding will be "easy money", they are in for a very rude shock.

Anonymous said...

How many millions were totally wasted on all the many workshops and talking sessions leading up the the stupid idea of using MARIE as LANL's next great science mission? And couldn't it be seen by all the "best and brightest" that MARIE relied completely on LANCSE, which gave the whole idea a single point of failure?

Way to go, Terry. You out did yourself with this one. Do they hand out Darwin Awards to LANS top management?

Anonymous said...

11:57 am: "Over one hundred comments on this thread, with the vast majority just relishing in the anti-koolaid they've been drinking for eons. And NO ONE thought to question the original source of this article?"

Check out 2/14 11:05 am.

Anonymous said...

2/16/09 12:03 PM

Thanks for a facts based post.

Nothing that I've seen or read online tells me that Obama's OMB is planning on doing away with the NWC.

Anonymous said...

Look here, I work with the most intelligent people in the world supposably and when I read this blog - I find that most of the entries are whining and crying about their jobs - which is understandable, however the problems this nation is facing is much greater. I think all those smart people can help find solutions and put aside all of their political views.
I say, step up to the plate and do the right thing.

Anonymous said...

And couldn't it be seen by all the "best and brightest" that MARIE relied completely on LANCSE, which gave the whole idea a single point of failure?

Everyone knew that, as championing MaRIE also was intended to boost LANSCE. But it weren't the "best and brightest" to choose from all the Grand Challenge Workshop ideas and white-papers but Terry and the other ADs.

Anonymous said...

MARIE never passed the ho ho test. The sooner it dies, the better for those programs that do have a reason to exist.

Anonymous said...

"I say, step up to the plate and do the right thing."

Yes! Just exactly when will Mr. Obama do the right thing?

Anonymous said...

"Nothing that I've seen or read online tells me that Obama's OMB is planning on doing away with the NWC." (3:04 PM)

No, he just plans of taking the NWC down a notch, or two... or perhaps three.. maybe four? Even the NNSA has been upfront about this idea with their talk of 30% reductions in the size of the complex.

The big question is whether the boost in non-proliferation funding makes up for the coming cuts on the traditional weapons side.

As far as LDRD goes, with St. Pete out of the picture, it is possible that LDRD might be cut back to a 4% rate.

If LANS kept the high overhead rates which were recently imposed on LDRD funds and LDRD is cut back to a 4% tax rate from the current 8% rate, the LDRD money available for basic science would be cut by far more than half.

LANS may soon be faced with the difficult question... what do you value more? Bloated management and support orgs or the support of basic science at this National Lab. Anyone care to guess what the answer might be?

Anonymous said...

"If LANS kept the high overhead rates which were recently imposed on LDRD funds and LDRD is cut back to a 4% tax rate from the current 8% rate, the LDRD money available for basic science would be cut by far more than half."

Errrrr.... can you say that a little slower, please, 'cuz it makes no doggone sense.

Anonymous said...

"LANS may soon be faced with the difficult question... what do you value more? Bloated management and support orgs or the support of basic science at this National Lab. Anyone care to guess what the answer might be?"

What brings in more profit?

Anonymous said...

Didn't anyone see my, 'yes we can!' video at the last all hands meeting?

-Mikey

Anonymous said...

Errrrr.... can you say that a little slower, please, 'cuz it makes no doggone sense.

2/16/09 8:11 PM


OK, I'll go real slow. The dates given here are approximate, so don't flame me if I'm off a bit.

(A) Back in the day, LDRD got 4% for funding but the overhead on LDRD projects was much lower than normal overhead at LANL, so each LDRD dollar went much further in terms of doing basic science.

(B) About 5 years ago, LDRD was raised to 6%.

(C) About 3 years ago, LDRD was raised to 8%. Pete Domenici championed this as an increase to basic science at LANL, but that extra 2% largely went to pay a new, much higher overhead rate on LDRD projects (ie, LDRD work wasn't treated as "special" any longer and LDRD labor rates bore the same costs as other projects at LANL, so the LDRD dollar didn't go as far in terms of doing basic science).

(D) If Congress forces the rate allowed for LDRD back down to the original 4%, and yet LANS leaves the high overhead rates associated with LDRD projects (ie, high labor rates), there will be a severe reduction in actual amount of basic science work that get done at LANL. In fact, it will result in less basic science being done than existed back at step (A).

Anonymous said...

"I say, step up to the plate and do the right thing."

Yes! Just exactly when will Mr. Obama do the right thing?

It is so sas 2/16/09 5:35 PM to read your comments. I suppose you have written most of the anti-Obama statements in this post. So sad that this country is in its current shape because of people like you. That is why we have wars and terrorism, because people like you would rather tear apart others instead of getting together to solve the situation. Our country is hurting badly and you would rather play politics just as we have seen with the current paritison separation on the economic stimulus package. You don't care to work for solutions! You are happy tearing apart the other party!

Don't be so naive, the Labs current situation can be blamed on past Presidents, Congressional sessions, DOE, NNSA, and Lab management....not on one person or one or two years!

Anonymous said...

I say let's develop another 1000 nuclear weapons and keep people at LANL employed! We will need that many to fight off Iran's one or two and North Koreas' one or two. Forget about non-proliferation or LDRD. Or, a good defense system. We need jobs at LANL regardless of the fact that we already have thousands and developed our weapons 60 years ago and Iran and North Korea are just developing their's recently. Hurry, the sky is falling!!!

Sincerely,
Chicken Little

Anonymous said...

"Well, I happen to know this came from low-level OMB staffers, was issued without approval of their higher-ups, and was retracted within 48 hours. LANL management was all-over this as were NNSA and a coordinated effort of other sites." (11:57 AM)


That "low-level OMB staffer" is sure causing quite a stir out at LANL. First he says DOD may take over the labs and then he says LDRD and the weapons program will both be cut.

Good thing we have reliable people like anonymous 11:57 AM to help set the record straight.

However, why should I believe anonymous 11:57 AM over the words of the press from this so-called "low level OMB staffer"?

Seems to me that the investigative work of the press has more going for it than some anonymous poster on this blog who claims to be intimately in the know about this situation.

I'll be eagerly awaiting to see retractions printed in the press from this "low level OMB staffer" that you speak of, 11:57 AM. When can we expect to see them, mysterious All-Seeing 11:57 AM?

Anonymous said...

Is it just me, or is the guy who keeps signing himself (anonymously) as "Mikey" really getting annoying? Geez, a few times was amusing, but you are really wearing out your welcome. Give it a rest.

Anonymous said...

WFO folks seem to think they are pristine and should be immune from the LANL overhead. As long as you enjoy the benefits of working at LANL (health care, 401k, pension (for some), buildings, lights, janitors (such as is), and secretaries), you should expect to pay for it, as least as much as those direct funded by NNSA. Otherwise, go work for the agency that is suporting you, except you'll find they don't value you THAT much. You are on very thin ice at LANL, by your own choosing. Live with your choices.

Anonymous said...

"WFO folks seem to think they are pristine and should be immune from the LANL overhead... enjoy the benefits of .. buildings, lights, janitors (such as is), and secretaries), you should expect to pay for it" (10:45 PM)


I had a good laugh after reading 10:45 PM's post.

You are joking, aren't you? You realize that the nuclear weapons side of the house requires huge resources that are not needed for much of the WFO work, don't you?

And you do realize that WFO helps pay for your paycheck, don't you? Actually, after reading your post, I guess not.

Poster 10:45 PM is systematic of much that is wrong in the attitude of some support and management people who ride in the back of the 'easy wagon' at LANL while expecting the scientists to work harder pulling in the money for their easy ride.

Too many people at LANL want to ride in the wagon, while fewer and fewer are willing to help pull it by bringing in more funding. It won't be long until attitudes like those of 10:45 PM cause this LANL wagon to come to a abrupt halt.

When it does, I suggest people like 10:45 PM take some time, look around, and figure out why their pleasant ride has suddenly ended.

Anonymous said...

So what was the document? "A memo." That's not near enough for responsible reporting, John Fleck.

For all we know, it was something written in a fever dream by a commenter on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Everyone! Find a blunt object, head to your local LANL parking lot and connect it with a Obama bumper sticker covered car!

Anonymous said...

Everyone!

I have it on excellent authority that all of the anti-Obama rhetoric that has peppered recent blog postings has, in fact, been originating from one bitter, over-the-hill LANL retiree with nothing better to do than bitch and complain because the Republicans lost the presidential election.

It probably isn't helping any that his last years at LANL were spent as a mediocre (surprise!) manager.

If it were me, I'd take the Obama-bashing here with a large grain of salt. Next thing you know he'll be shouting that Obama is going to take his guns away.

Anonymous said...

Hey 5:48, even if there's only one Obama hater posting, that doesn't mean others of us don't agree.

Anonymous said...

Oh, 1:34 PM, I have seen the official memo. It exists. Just because you are an idiot - MAry Neu - doesn't mean you have to pick on John Fleck.

Anonymous said...

9:49 PM, thank you...I get it now.

Anonymous said...

5:48 pm:
"I have it on excellent authority that all of the anti-Obama rhetoric that has peppered recent blog postings has, in fact, been originating from one bitter, over-the-hill LANL retiree..."

Right. And how, exactly, does your "authority" know this? Unless of course, postings here are not as "anonymous" as advertised. Frank? Care to weigh in on whether 5:14 pm could possibly be correct?

Anonymous said...

"I have it on excellent authority that all of the anti-Obama rhetoric that has peppered recent blog postings has, in fact, been originating from one bitter, over-the-hill LANL retiree with nothing better to do than bitch and complain because the Republicans lost the presidential election."


You've got to be kidding. 60 million Americans voted against this fraud & you think only one of them frequents this blog?

Anonymous said...

"Next thing you know he'll be shouting that Obama is going to take his guns away."

2/17/09 5:48 PM

Actaully your right. The Obamanator and his cabinet are the most anti-gun socialist we had in office since the Clintonista's. I believed that before I saw this.

http://www.citizenlink.org/Stoplight/A000009104.cfm

Anonymous said...

"You realize that the nuclear weapons side of the house requires huge resources that are not needed for much of the WFO work, don't you?"

Specifically what?

Expensive nuke facility infrastructure? Nope, that's RTBF direct funded (around $350-400M), supplemented by user-program dollars.

Expensive security support? Nope, NNSA funds ($175M) pay directly for that, too.

This is one of the oldest and tiredest myths on this blog.

Anonymous said...

"Akshully, yor rite, 8:40.

Yor also a fucking 4th-grade knuckle dragger judging by yor hillbilly command of the inglish language.

BUT, I have no doubt that yor a good god-fearing republikan.

See you in cherch, good buddy. Mabe we can meat up aftr the sermon 'n go shoot some shit t'gethur down't the gun club.

Anonymous said...

"You've got to be kidding. 60 million Americans voted against this fraud & you think only one of them frequents this blog?"

Hmmm, at best only few dozen out out of that 60 million could use a computer so I will go with the single poster theory.

Anonymous said...

10:07 pm: "Hmmm, at best only few dozen out out of that 60 million could use a computer so I will go with the single poster theory."

That combination of arrogance and ignorance is usually only seen in cats, which unlike you, have 9 lives to compensate for it.

Anonymous said...

citizenlink.org

Is one of the most bigoted, sexist, racist, anti-American and right wing websites in this country. Might as well cite a klan or neo-Nazi website.

I love how the right wing enjoy telling other people how to live their lives.

I could easily see citizenlink.org being the leading state run website in present day Iran/North Korea or 1930 Germany if the www had existed back then.

Anonymous said...

The right wants to blame Obama... well this is the future and its not this president's fault.

------
"Worst Is Yet to Come:" Americans' Standard of Living Permanently Changed
Feb 17, 2009
by Aaron Task

There's no question the American consumer is hurting in the face of a burst housing bubble, financial market meltdown and rising unemployment.

But "the worst is yet to come," according to Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates, who believes American's standard of living is undergoing a "permanent change" - and not for the better as a result of:

* An $8 trillion negative wealth effect from declining home values.

* A $10 trillion negative wealth effect from weakened capital markets.

* A $14 trillion consumer debt load amid "exploding unemployment", leading to "exploding bankruptcies."

"The average American used to be able to borrow to buy a home, send their kids to a good school [and] buy a car," Davidowitz says. "A lot of that is gone."

Going forward, the veteran retail industry consultant foresees higher savings rate and people trading down in both the goods and services they buy - as well as their aspirations.

The end of rampant consumerism is ultimately a good thing, he says, but the unraveling of an economy built on debt-fueled spending will be painful for years to come.

----------

$787 billion to slow the bleeding and easy the landing, but the end will still be the same.

Middle class ($75K to $150K a year depending on where you live) in this country are in for a different lifestyle. Republicans who want to do nothing and think this is a normal recession better wake up. Its easy of you're a rich Republican making more than $200K a year to say lets do nothing and cut my taxes. Well you can't "lets cut taxes" your way out of this mess. You're going to have to cut services and things - such as a NNSA that is much larger than 1000 to 2000 deployed weapons would demand.

Anonymous said...

"You realize that the nuclear weapons side of the house requires huge resources that are not needed for much of the WFO work, don't you?" - 12:01 PM

"Specifically what?" - 8:42 PM


Here's what... spending vast sums on overhead for too many managers at LANL who think just like you do, 8:42 PM. That's what.

LANL needs to diversify like SNL did back in the mid-1990's if it is to thrive. If it does not, it will slowly die. Part of the plan to produce new growth will require making LANL more cost competitive for outside customers.

LANS knows this, but as others have said, they have no plans for expanding WFO at LANL. I guess it really has become a dead-end subject for discussion.

Anonymous said...

"That combination of arrogance and ignorance is usually only seen in cats, which unlike you, have 9 lives to compensate for it."
2/17/09 10:30 PM

ROFLMAO :)

Anonymous said...

When is congress going to learn that you cannot have a group of "C" students (DOE) doing oversight over a group of "A" students (LANL)? The "C" students are always outwitted by the "A" students.

Anonymous said...

Oh 2:12 PM, brings to mind the old addage... dogs drule and cats rule!

Anonymous said...

Where does this concept that LANL is staffed by "A students"? And wtf is that supposed to mean?

Anonymous said...

6:24 pm: "dogs drule and cats rule!"

Uh, "drool"? Posted by a cat.

Anonymous said...

"Where does this concept that LANL is staffed by "A students"? And wtf is that supposed to mean?

2/18/09 7:12 PM"

Hey it is over your head so just leave it be and move on with your life. When you lose the world wins.

Anonymous said...

To 7:12 PM - arrogant bastards that can't live up to the demands of what a PhD entails. Basically, bitchy, whiny, losers who are jealous of successful PhDs (ie those that came from a reputable institution).

Anonymous said...

"Basically, bitchy, whiny, losers who are jealous of successful PhDs (ie those that came from a reputable institution)."

You guys are missing the point. If you're not attempting to go into academia, it doesn't seem to matter if you came from a "reputable" institution or not. Unless you are an upper-level manager, you're just a chump scientist or engineer. LANL is becoming no different than defense contractors.

Technical talent is plentiful. One of the few things saving an enhanced salary at LANL is clearance requirements. Otherwise, it would be similar to Microsoft laying off technical people while claiming the need for a substantial allotment of H1B visas.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Senator-Questions-Microsofts-H1B-Plans/

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09%2F01%2F24%2F078245&from=rss

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=14&articleId=9128450&intsrc=hm_topic

Anonymous said...

I was looking online for some REAL information about the possible move from DOE to DoD and came across this awful blog. Wow, this is really embarrassing for you all. No wonder everyone posts as anonymous. I truly hope this is not a representative group of LANL employees. I expected to see some high caliber intelligent discussion. Most of the comments are so beyond stupid and childish, I can’t even think of an adequate descriptive term for how bad it is. It’s just full of fear, rumors, profanity, and political nonsense. I hope these are not the great minds responsible for the next big scientific discovery of our generation.

Anonymous said...

2/24/09 8:27 PM

You have to understand that no one who posts here actually works at LANL. Well, except for maybe a few chemists.