A Safe, Secure and Dwindling Arsenal
NY Times EditorialPublished: February 21, 2009
The Obama administration is studying whether to move the nation’s huge nuclear weapons production and maintenance complex from the Energy Department, its host for more than two decades, to the Defense Department. The more important question is how it can best contribute to a safe reduction of the nuclear arsenal.
Two decades after the end of the cold war — and nearly two decades after the country stopped building weapons — the complex is costly, antiquated, oversized and badly in need of an overhaul.
President Obama needs to clearly promulgate a strategy that downgrades the role of nuclear weapons and demands that the weapons complex focuses clearly on its mission: guaranteeing the security and reliability of a shrinking arsenal. And he needs to ensure that the complex (and Defense Secretary Robert Gates) abandons any illusions of building a new warhead — a strategically and scientifically unnecessary program that would be disastrous for American credibility.
The main reason for considering a transfer is apparently a desire to let the Energy Department focus exclusively on energy issues, one of the administration’s highest priorities. That is a worthy objective. While the National Nuclear Security Administration is officially semiautonomous, it eats up two-thirds of the Energy Department’s budget. Every time it encounters problems, the energy secretary is inevitably distracted.
But transferring the complex to Pentagon control could have unfortunate consequences. The already highly secret complex could lose even the limited transparency currently afforded by Congressional committees that oversee the Energy Department. The national laboratories, which do substantial work for civilian clients, might find their mission narrowed and their ability to attract scientific talent diminished.
The Office of Management and Budget has asked the departments to jointly assess the costs and benefits of a transfer. The study would be wise to consider a middle option, letting the nuclear administration stand as an independent agency whose importance could be underscored by having it report to the president.
Neither department has done a particularly capable job. The Energy Department has a poor record in managing costly and complex programs. Under its control, the national laboratories have had repeated security lapses. The Defense Department also has proved to be a less-than-reliable steward. Lax management allowed intercontinental ballistic missile components to be shipped inadvertently to Taiwan in 2006 and nuclear bombs to be flown across the country in 2007 without anyone realizing it until after the fact.
Wherever the weapons complex is situated bureaucratically, it will have to be modernized, reduced in size and managed a lot more carefully.
Could someone please explain to me again why we need *two* nuclear weapons design labs?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it time to address the fact that LANL an LLNL are a redundant drain on the budget?
The article says: "The national laboratories, which do substantial work for civilian clients, might find their mission narrowed and their ability to attract scientific talent diminished."
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that the "ability to attract scientific talent" at LANL is about at zero, at least for other than C students.
It' hard to believe how much damage can be done to a top-level institution by just a few years of mismanagement.
AND, while most institutions can recover from one bad leader (Nanos), the new for-profit structure can never take LANL back to a position of excellence.
What the article says about civilian clients is true for Sandia. Nearly 50% of their budget comes from WFO clients.
ReplyDeleteIt used to be true about LANL, but is not true now, nor has it been since Nanos drove most of our WFO away in 2004.
It's hard to believe that at its height shortly before the Nanos shutdown, 23% of LANL's budget came from WFO. What is it now? 1%?
Now, with LANL's astronomical FTE rates, and our pathetic, ineffectual management chain the prospects of reversing the WFO trend are near zero.
We attract C students?
ReplyDeleteTimes are improving!
I strongly agree with the Obama administration that NNSA should be moved to the DoD. LANL should split into two labs - a science lab under the DOE and a weapons lab under the DoD. Kirkland Air Force Base has multiple labs - AFRL, SNL, etc., so why not split LANL into two labs? Splitting LANL in half is a great way to reduce the cost of doing open/”green” science because the science side won’t have the NNSA overhead. T and B div and other science divisions are being killed by NNSA; as a result, our US Senators, US Congressman, and Mayor Chavez should support the move. The best thing for the state of NM is to diversify the funding agencies at the LANL and SNL (DoD + DOE); and most important of all, moving NNSA to DoD is the best way to grow the “green” science research because there won‘t be the NNSA overhead!
ReplyDeleteOak Ridge is split into two laboratories - Y12 and ORNL respectively. ORNL has much lower overhead for doing science than Y12 or LANL.
ReplyDelete"The study would be wise to consider a middle option, letting the nuclear administration stand as an independent agency whose importance could be underscored by having it report to the president." (NY Times)
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I've got this right...
The NY Times wants to take a completely dysfunctional agency, NNSA, which has been called a "failure" by almost all the NM politicians (Bingamin, Domenici, Richardson) plus many others, and then cut it loose so that it can be allowed to become and even more dysfunctional agency?
The NY Times must *REALLY* hate the US nuclear weapons complex!
Cutting NNSA loose from either DOE or DOD would be the worst possible solution.
Therefore, after more wasted time on useless studies, count on this being the "solution" imposed by our completely inept Congress. Downward... ever downward we go.
Fine idea, 12:04.
ReplyDeleteExcept,
Why should anybody go to all the trouble to fix the completely broken LANL in an attempt to enable it to do "green" science, when there is already a perfectly functional, well-run DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory?
And please don't give me that "best and brightest" crap. We all know better.
Remember, according to old LANL hands,the Lab started to go down hill when the AEC became a weak department in the cabinet instead of a lower level organization. Promoting more parts of the complex into higher visibility seems exactly backwards.
ReplyDeleteIndeed 12:22, there are other “green”/science labs in existence with very bright scientists; however, these labs have not found solutions for our dependence on foreign energy nor have they solved the climate change problem. Los Alamos has scientists that can immediately start investigating possible solutions to the challenging energy problems, but that is impossible unless LANL is split into a science lab and a DoD weapons lab. If the NM Democratic leadership cares about NM and solving the US’s energy problems, then they should support sending NNSA to DoD and then splitting Los Alamos into two different laboratories.
ReplyDelete“The more important question is how it can best contribute to a safe reduction of the nuclear arsenal.”
ReplyDeleteWhy is this the more important question - - We’ve been safely reducing the nuclear weapons stockpile for several decades.
“Two decades after the end of the cold war — and nearly two decades after the country stopped building weapons — the complex is costly, antiquated, oversized and badly in need of an overhaul.”
This is usually the consequence when you quit building what you’re in business to build.
“President Obama needs to clearly promulgate a strategy that downgrades the role of nuclear weapons and demands that the weapons complex focuses clearly on its mission: guaranteeing the security and reliability of a shrinking arsenal.”
NNSA’s primary mission is to maintain & enhance the safety, security & reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile – whether it’s growing or shrinking.
“And he needs to ensure that the complex (and Defense Secretary Robert Gates) abandons any illusions of building a new warhead — a strategically and scientifically unnecessary program that would be disastrous for American credibility.”
Why is this disastrous for American credibility, but not for all the others. Seems to have worked very well up until the time we quit building new bombs.
“The main reason for considering a transfer is apparently a desire to let the Energy Department focus exclusively on energy issues.”
Or could it be because they have a great history of dismal performance?
“While the National Nuclear Security Administration is officially semiautonomous…”
Kind of like being semi-pregnant.
“The study would be wise to consider a middle option, letting the nuclear administration stand as an independent agency whose importance could be underscored by having it report to the president.”
This is like deciding which half of the Titanic we want to sink with.
“Under its control, the national laboratories have had repeated security lapses.”
Solution??? - Let’s do away with nuclear weapons! Brilliant! Based on this logic we can use it to eliminate our biggest leak of all –Congress.
“Wherever the weapons complex is situated bureaucratically, it will have to be modernized, reduced in size and managed a lot more carefully.”
If we want to eliminate the bad o nukes, why spend any $$$ modernizing the weapons complex, reducing it in size & managing it “more carefully”. It’s the lack of careful management that’s achieving the reduction/elimination.
An independent NNSA?
ReplyDeleteAAAARRRRRRHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Who are these LANL scientists that need to be unleashed? How will they be able to compete with NREL, LBNL, and many universities and companies if they are on 1 year funding cycles and are 3 years or more behind the competition?
ReplyDeleteNNSA has proven to be such a huge success, let's put the idea on steroids and create an independent NNSA. Yeah! That's the ticket! Poor on the rocket fuel and that will solve everything. Why didn't we think of this before?
ReplyDeleteSame goes with the for-profit management of the NNSA research labs. It's been such a great success, we should take it to the next step. Double the profit fee to $160 million per year and LANL will be run even better than before.
Yehhhawww!
Nuclear weapons policy of Barack Obama, peace through weakness!?
ReplyDeleteFrom The Washington Times
Gaffney: Peace through weakness?
Frank Gaffney
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Commentary:
Fresh from reworking the domestic economic order via the "stimulus" bill in favor of vastly expanded U.S. government influence and power, President Barack Obama proposes a set of changes with respect to American security policies and programs that will have the opposite effect. If equally successful, he stands to transform the "world´s only superpower" into a nuclear impotent, with possibly catastrophic consequences.
Such a transformation would be the more extraordinary for it coming against the backdrop of others´buildups of their nuclear arsenals. Every other declared nuclear weapon state is modernizing its stockpile and the most dangerous wannabees - North Korea and Iran - are building up their offensive missile capabilities and acquiring as quickly as possible the arms to go atop them. The American people are largely clueless about this state of affairs. Doubtless, they would be horrified by the affront to common sense and hard experience entailed, especially under these circumstances, by the sort of U.S. disarmament Mr. Obama has underway.
In fairness, this president inherited what amounts to a 17-year-long unilateral U.S. nuclear freeze. Since 1992, there has been no underground nuclear testing in the United States and no modernization of the arsenal. We have allowed a steady decline in investment in the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program that promised to assure the safety, effectiveness and reliability of our nuclear weapons in the absence of below-ground tests.
Meeting that riorous standard has been made more all the more challenging by the concomitant exodus of the skilled workforce and the increasing obsolescence and unsustainability of the industrial complex it mans. Not surprisingly, the nuclear laboratory directors´certifications about the status of our weapons are increasingly qualified by warnings of uncertainties about how long the present situation can be sustained. What is more, since the Cold War´s end, the United States has reduced by roughly three-quarters the numbers of nuclear weapons it deployed at that time. Today, we have fewer than the 2,200 fielded nuclear arms we are permitted to have under the U.S.-Russian Treaty of Moscow signed by Presidents Bush and Putin in 2002.
Now, President Obama wants to cut that number down to roughly 500 deployed weapons. His Office of Management and Budget contemplates no modernization of these forces and no upgrading of the capability to produce or refurbish them. The Obama administration seeks the swift ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - which was rejected by a majority of the Senate in 1997 and which would permanently preclude in the future tests that may be essential to the maintenance of our deterrent. As part of a concerted effort at rapprochment with the Kremlin, Mr. Obama is not only signaling a willingness to scrap the missile defense deployment previously agreed upon by NATO and the basing countries, Poland and the Czech Republic. He not only is hinting at acquiescence to Russian domination of its "near-abroad" (including Georgia and Ukraine). His representatives indicate that they wants an arms control deal that effects these draconian cuts while extending and applying terms of the outdated START II Treaty.
Combining START counting rules and the propoded Obama force reductions would have the practical effect of attribuiting weapons to various platforms in a way that would effectively preclude the maintenance of the "Triad" of strategic forces that has served us so well, for so long. One and possibly two of the "legs" of this deterrent posture would have to be dismantled.
In addition, the Obama administration apparently believes that the remaining strategic weapons - presumably on submarines - would have to be taken off what it wrongly claims is "hair-trigger" alert status. As with bans on nuclear testing and at least some of the proposed Obama nuclear reductions initiatives, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to verify the compliance of secretive governments with such "de-alerting" arrangements. Only ours would be rendered incapable of prompt use should the need arise.
The cumulative effect of these actions would be to render the U.S. nuclear arsenal, to quote President Reagan, "impotent and obsolete." That was, of couse, not something he ever contemplated having the United States do unilaterally. In fact, even though our 40th president is increasingly invoked by the anti-nuclear crowd (whose latest campaign is called "Global Zero" and seeks the hopelessly unrealistic goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons) because of his avowed antipatthy towards such arms, arguably no one did more than he to build up America´s deterrent. Indeed, were it not for the capabilities Mr. Reagan put in place in the 1980s as part of his refurbishing of our nuclear Triad, we might well have been substantially disarmed already.
The tragic irony is that the Obama administration´s goal of global denuclearization is likely to be made more remote, not less, as America´s deterrent becomes ever less certain. Our adversaries stand to benefit geostrategically from building up their nuclear arsenals as ours vanishes. Long-time allies will surely feel constrained to acquire their own nuclear forces if our "umbrella" ceases to assure them protection. In short, more proliferation, not less, is in prospect.
In these ways, Barack Obama risks standing the time-tested Reagan philosophy of "peace through strength" on its head in favor of a posture shown to be a formula for war - sometimes on a global, cataclysmic scale: the failed pursuit of peace through U.S. weakness.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/17/peace-through-weakness/)
(I agree in the remarks by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. in the article.)
2/21/09 10:15 AM
ReplyDeleteIt's called checks and balances. Just because one says it will work doesn't mean it will work unless all is considered and double checks. Personally I want these weapons to work first time, every time. We can't afford any duds.
Maybe this country needs a lesson lead by liberal Democrats. We should disarm, destroy all weapons and allow the enemy to come in and take over. This would follow the thoughts of those jerks in this administration who want to take guns away from the citizens. Afterwards when all is done maybe those who said we needed to be a peace loving one world order global economy will then admit they made a big mistake. How about it? I wonder after all that would these idiots who propose disarmament, get it. For some reason I don't think they's even be happy after that.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it may require a rogue nation to light one off on the east coast. Then the money will flow again for nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteBy then the national nuclear labs will have been hopelessly neutered of any creativity and productivity. The corporate knowledge lost. The once great USA is fading, no, charging into oblivian.
Off topic but ...
ReplyDeletedoes anyone know why there are now job ads out for ADCLES (Mary Neu's position) and for ADCLES COS?
Woah, 7:25 PM. Did not know that. Knew about her deputy stepping down to become the new C-IIAC group leader, but did not know that Neu was moving or her COS. Guess, her appeal is wearing off in the upper levels of management. The Monet syndrome...
ReplyDeleteThe whole idea of moving LANL to DoD is a trial balloon, and designed solely to convince the local political rubes, including lab employees, to INSIST on rapid implementation of the real plan which will split LANL into 3 pieces: a "Science" lab under DOE; a weapons plant under NNSA, and an EM site under DOE. Sounds great, but 2-3 years down the road "Science" will be broke, and all of the new jobs will be in cleanup.
ReplyDeleteWhat was it that former LANL Director Sig Hecker called LANL in his Congressional testimony last Spring? Oh, yeah, now I remember... scientific "prisons" that no self respecting scientists would ever want to come work for since NNSA's ultra-risk aversion process took hold along with the for-profit contractorization.
ReplyDeleteWith the idea of an independent NNSA, I guess we're about to kick it up a notch or two... to the SuperMax prison level!
2/21/09 4:29 PM
ReplyDeleteEven with 1000 nuclear weapons in the US deployed stockpile (about 50% of the Moscow Treaty limit) we'd be able to nuke several times over every possible military and political target in any rogue country that attacked us.
People on this blog act as is if we had no nuclear weapons... and even without nukes our conventional missile/bomber forces could destroy Iran or N. Koren infrastructure (power plants, dams, water treatment, airports, communication nodes, etc) with ease.
Name me one potential rogue or enemy state that the US military if released unrestrained could not wipe off the planet with our conventional forces.
Our biggest constraint is a desire to limit enemy civilian deaths... if a nuke went off in NYC and it was tracked to a willing rogue state, I don't think our initial response strike - hundreds of cruse missiles with HE and a well placed nuke or two to kill their leaders - would be planned to limit casualties.
We can't afford any duds.
ReplyDelete2/21/09 4:22 PM
But that is the whole point of the anti-nuke crowd and their current strategy. If they can get the NNSA research labs and the US nuclear arsenal into such squalid dis-repair that we can no longer trust these nukes to work when fired, then they'll have achieved their goal of unilateral US disarmament, so to speak.
It's a back door approach to arriving at this goal and the anti-nuke crowd is well on their way to achieving success.
"Deficit reduction" will be the name of the process used by Obama to radically scale back US defense spending. Good luck at keeping a job at LANL over the next four years. The odds may be running against you:
ReplyDeleteObama's First Budget Seeks To Trim Deficit (Washington Post, Feb 22, 2009)
Plan Would Cut War Spending, Increase Taxes on the Wealthy
President Obama is putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget that seeks to cut the federal deficit in half over the next four years, primarily by raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy and by slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, administration officials said.
..A summary of Obama's budget request for the fiscal year that begins in October will be delivered to Congress on Thursday, with the complete, multi-hundred-page document to follow in April. But Obama plans to unveil his goals for scaling back record deficits and rebuilding the nation's costly and inefficient health care system tomorrow, when he addresses lawmakers and budget experts at a White House summit on restoring "fiscal responsibility" to Washington.
Reducing the deficit, he said, is critical: "We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control."
Obama proposes to dramatically reduce those numbers, said White House budget director Peter Orszag: "We will cut the deficit in half by the end of the president's first term." The plan would keep the deficit hovering near $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011, but shows it dropping to $533 billion by 2013, he said -- still high but a more manageable 3 percent of the economy.
..Overall, tax collections under the plan would rise from about 16 percent of the economy this year to 19 percent in 2013, while federal spending would drop from about 26 percent of the economy, another post-World War II high, to 22 percent.
LANL has become a third tier laboratory. I always said science died at LANL on June 1st 2006 when LANS took over. LANL has become a career killing place. The best and the brightest are now second rated PDs, most FNs hunting for high salaries and an easy way to get a green card. Why someone should bother split this place in two? The succesful LANL TSM publishes one paper out of a 3 yrs LDRD in a decent journal, with the paper cited 0 times after 1-2 yrs. The La La land has become a joke.
ReplyDeleteAn economic depression can do wonders to:
ReplyDelete1) Rapidly * DECREASE * the amount of military spending, and
2) Rapidly * INCREASE * the amount of welfare spending.
Just look at what happened in the 1930's. The US had no extra money to spend on defense and so the military was squeezed to the point that this country's war fighting machine largely became a joke. Even gun ammunition was in very short supply for troops back during this time.
Meanwhile, welfare spending hit new highs back then as people needed to eat and have minimal shelter, else riots might erupt. And, just like the 1930's, the Democrats raised taxes on the "wealthy" and on corporations.
It feels very much to me like the world is about to repeat the decade of the 1930's. Let's just hope that we don't have another Pearl Harbor or a WW-III waiting for us at the end.
In many parts of the globe, the current economic distress could easily lead to a re-emergence of both fascism and communism. Economic dislocation is currently a big concern in the open reports coming out of US intelligence agencies.
What's old may soon become new again, as the global era of prosperity comes to a sudden halt and people become re-acquainted to how hunger and poverty can quickly reshape political beliefs to the extremes. We are not there yet, but the process has not completed.
Give it time.
"The succesful LANL TSM publishes one paper out of a 3 yrs LDRD in a decent journal, with the paper cited 0 times after 1-2 yrs. The La La land has become a joke."
ReplyDeleteSorry but this is just pure bs.
Some good people have left however there are still good people at LANL
and in general the people that get LDRD are very productive by any standard of merit.
Think before you make your next off the wall statement.
"...science side won’t have the NNSA overhead. T and B div and other science divisions are being killed by NNSA"
ReplyDeleteCareful what you ask for. Could T survive an instant 50%+ cut in its LDRD income?
"It's hard to believe that at its height shortly before the Nanos shutdown, 23% of LANL's budget came from WFO. What is it now? 1%?"
ReplyDeleteDepends on your definition of WFO.
If you mean non-Weapons Program, LANL is at 46% for FY09 (vs 43% in FY03 and 42% in FY04)
If you mean non-NNSA funding, LANL is at 38% (vs 29% in FY03 and 29% in FY04)
And if you mean non-DOE funding, aka Reimburseable Work, LANL is at 13% (vs 16% in FY03 and 17% in FY04)
(Source: ADSMS Budget Training for Managers)
By comparision, Sandia is:
57% non Weapons-Program
49% non-NNSA
37% non-DOE
(Source: Sandia Facts and Figures web page)
A few years back, there was a study done ranking scientific institutions in the world according to the total number of citations their papers gathered. LANL was somewhere around the 10th place, if I remember it right. (Anybody remembers the details?)
ReplyDeleteSince almost all these papers were written with LDRD money, how's it possible to have "one paper out of a 3 yrs LDRD in a decent journal, with the paper cited 0 times after 1-2 yrs"? Sounds like outright baloney to me.
Now, it is true that these citation statistics may no longer apply. Working conditions under LANS have become unbearable: you can't count on receiving your email, you can't work at home, and now you can't download any papers or talks in pdf (unbelievable but true, effective Friday evening). The message from LANS/NNSA is unambiguous: we won't let you to science here. "Security" matters here, work doesn't. If you are any good, leave. And people are.
Splitting off the "science piece" from the NNSA-led weapons plant is the only way to go. Yes, it will at first mean a huge cut in funding, but with a lower overhead we will be able to seek grants from external sources. Not guaranteed to work, but worth trying. Right now science work is being suffocated by NNSA anyway. Without change, we are on a path to sure death.
ReplyDelete"The succesful LANL TSM publishes one paper out of a 3 yrs LDRD in a decent journal, with the paper cited 0 times after 1-2 yrs. The La La land has become a joke."
ReplyDeleteyou hit the nail on the head with this one! except you forgot to mention the TSMs on LDRDs who sit around collecting a paycheck talking about what they are "going" to do. 2 years into the project, they just stop showing up all together. competing with bnl or lbl for renewable energy would be a mistake b/c the bozo explosion at lanl has gone into full effect.
2/21/09 10:15 AM Could someone please explain to me again why we need *two* nuclear weapons design labs?
ReplyDeleteBack in the 70's both Labs were competing for the W79, W82, B83, W87, W88, W90, low altitude defensive weapon system (LoAD), earth penetrator weapon (EPW), anti-submarine warhead (ASW), etc.
Now we compete for between Anastasio, MacMillan, and Knapp which is going to the UK this week and who is gonna back home this weekend to Livermore (on the U.S. taxpayers money) to visit their families and have dinner at the Wente Winery. That's why!!
" and now you can't download any papers or talks in pdf (unbelievable but true, effective Friday evening). "
ReplyDeleteit's a security risk to know what your competitors are doing. now shut up and drink the kool-aid!
"And if you mean non-DOE funding, aka Reimburseable Work, LANL is at 13% (vs 16% in FY03 and 17% in FY04)" - 8:20 AM
ReplyDeleteThanks for those figures, 8:20 AM. It is the large non-DOE funding declines that worry me (i.e., funding from DOD, DHS, Intell, and other agencies).
The fact that LANL has now declined to only 13% while Sandia is at 37% is telling. It's my understanding that two decades ago, this side of LANL's budget was at around 25%.
LANL has been scaring these customers off at a rapid rate in the last 5 years due to new restrictive policies and extremely high TSM labor rates. Upper management at LANL have also made it very clear they have no plans to change things to make the non-DOE work more attractive. I predict this work will soon shrink from the currently low 13% rate to single digits in about the next year or so.
LANL has no hope of diversifying because LANS doesn't want it to happen. They'll tell politicians in Washington otherwise, but it's very clear what is really going on here in regards to project diversification. And without this diversification, LANL will slowly die as the weapons budget shrinks.
"..and now you can't download any papers or talks in pdf (unbelievable but true, effective Friday evening)."
ReplyDeleteFor the love of God, tell me this isn't true, is it? Have we really come to this point?
If so, it's as if LANS is yelling at the remaining scientists, "Get the f*ck out of here!!!"
""..and now you can't download any papers or talks in pdf (unbelievable but true, effective Friday evening)."
ReplyDeleteFor the love of God, tell me this isn't true, is it? Have we really come to this point?
If so, it's as if LANS is yelling at the remaining scientists, "Get the f*ck out of here!!!"
"
It is true look at the lab page.
You cannot download pdfs. All email
with pdfs are blocked.
"Adobe warns of critical, unpatched security flaw." "Adobe has yet to develop an update to address the vulnerability but noted it expects to have one ready for Adobe Reader 9 and Acrobat 9 by March 11. After that, the company expects to launch updates for the earlier versions of the software going back to Adobe Reader 7 and Acrobat 7. "
ReplyDeleteCNET News (click here)
So, maybe the lab is just being cautious?
Adobe says the fix to Adobe Reader won't be ready until March 11th, so don't count on viewing any PDFs at LANL until then and maybe longer.
ReplyDeleteHowever, LANS' reaction to this seems extreme. How many other places in the government are taking the same action? What about DOD and DOE HQ?
If you read the release from Adobe, it would seem that the number of events is quite small. I would think that some common sense and care in opening PDF files would eliminate the risk. Just like all files, we do not open files from unknown soursces.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot operate in an environment of zero risk.
If these threats shut us down out of fear, than the bad guys have won.
ReplyDeleteWhy not? We have operated in an environment of zero leadership for years.
ReplyDelete"We cannot operate in an environment of zero risk."
ReplyDeleteWhy not at least try, since you are safeguarding the nation's nuclear secrets.
""We cannot operate in an environment of zero risk."
ReplyDeleteWhy not at least try, since you are safeguarding the nation's nuclear secrets.
2/22/09 5:12 PM"
Of course we are trying, however
if you think about this for a second you will realize why such crazy action create much greater security risks.
2/22/09 5:12 PM:
ReplyDeleteYou are full of it, and you yourself know that! Are you seriously suggesting that people who handle nuclear secrets don't even try to protect them?!
Seriously:
Blocking pdfs has nothing whatsoever to do with real security. Just like the quarantining (and then losing) all incoming emails. All this just forces people who have projects with deliverables to meet to move to gmail and home computers. That, in turn, actually increases the risks.
Logic will get you nowhere, 6:48. Don't you realize LANS has six-sigma black belts working these important issues?
ReplyDelete"if you think about this for a second you will realize why such crazy action create much greater security risks."
ReplyDeleteOK, I thought about it for a second, and I do not realize why such a "crazy" action creates much greater security risks.
Unless you're suggesting, like 6:48, that many people intend to intentionally bypass security measures.
5:12 pm: ""We cannot operate in an environment of zero risk."
ReplyDeleteWhy not at least try, since you are safeguarding the nation's nuclear secrets."
Yeah, but not by exchanging them over open pdf files, jerk.
"Unless you're suggesting, like 6:48, that many people intend to intentionally bypass security measures.
ReplyDelete2/22/09 8:19 PM"
Thinking is not your strong point.
In fact just think for awhile about this. It will be the people who will now unintentially cause seurity problems. Opposite of what you said. Before you post again think for 1D day about what that could mean, even you may figure it out. Now go forth I command you to "THINK". Many are rooting for you!!!
You know what? By the same logic that apparently caused LANS to ban pdf email attachments, they are now almost contractually required to ban Microsoft Windows, too!
ReplyDeleteThe only real question remaining is will they mandate Mac OSX, or Linux as the oficially sanctioned corporate "approved" secure OS?
Knowing LANS as well as I do, I have no doubt that they will fuck this choice up as well, and pick Macintosh as the new LANS "safe and secure" "six sigma S&S" corporate OS.
The freedom of United States citizens cannot be served by long-term weakness in any important endeavor. Nuclear weapons are an unavoidable important fact in our future. Whether retained or eliminated by the US, they will always be a threat. We need to understand the threat and be ready and able to respond.
ReplyDeleteWe must maintain adequate threat knowledge whether weapons are deployed or not, on scales large or small. As world leaders driven to depose despots, we will always be threatened by the knowledge that they exist and that some forms are easy to master.
We must maintain vigilance. In the long run, this means design, deploy and test.
There is no other rational choice. If we don't maintain a credible long-term deterrence democracy will disappear, in a fireball or in retreat.
" Could someone please explain to me again why we need *two* nuclear weapons design labs?.."
ReplyDeletePerhaps because neither has been exercised for so long that there is only conjecture to judge if they are competent.
Peer review and collective memory are poor substitutes for the certainty of test results.
(talk is cheap and worth every penny)
I like having Democrats in charge. It will force them to finally be realistic...
ReplyDeleteSo when a well-tested, modern Russian arsenal backs Medeyev's reminder some time in the near future that the 100-year LEASE that the Czar granted Seward in 1898 for the use of the Alaska territory is now 12 years past due, President O'bama will have decide what to tell Governor Palin.
The answer probably depends on whether we have an arsenal or not....but maybe Secretary Clinton has a better answer up her skirt....
Eliminating nuclear weapons doesn't uninvent them.
ReplyDeleteElimination only makes even the littlest of cheaters important & very dangerous.
Good Gawd,
ReplyDeleteWho lets illiterates like 2/23/09 12:50 AM even get close to a nuclear weapons lab. Alaska was purchased from Imperial Russia in 1867. Sec State Seward died in 1872. Some sort of minimum education must be required at nuclear weapons labs? Not?
12:50 AM
ReplyDeleteAlaska lease???
Better get some sleep; you're staying up too late reading propaganda written by former KGB agents.
Alaska was ceded to the US with no reservations nor encumbrances. No lease, no time limit. See the Treaty concerning the Cession of the Russian Possessions in North America...
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=575
We are on the verge of some serious and important discussion on this thread, if only the posters would settle down and elaborate their views constructively. Please? The existence of nuclear weapons. The threat of the "littlest cheaters" (Great phrase!). The existence of Democracy without ultimate deterrent? "Peer review and collective memory" vs. test results. Bravo, keep it going, guys.
ReplyDeleteIf, as the New York Times article suggests that… “The more important question is how it (the Obama administration) can best contribute to a safe reduction of the nuclear arsenal” I would submit that:
ReplyDelete1.The actions of Iran & North Korea seem to put more importance on the acquisition of nuclear weapons much more than improved relations with the modern world.
While the Iranians seem more focused on stretching out the negotiation process until they achieve a nuclear weapons capability, the Nork’s strategy seems to be more directed at the never ending blackmail of the modern world as a means of economic survival.
2.When Iran acquires a nuclear weapons capability, destabilization of the Middle East is a certainty. Some possibilities:
a. Fear causes an arms race in the
region – an absolute nightmare.
b. Israelis begin an exodus from
their country to escape the
fear.
c. Hezbollah & Hamas end up with
the finished product in their
hands (I cannot imagine that
Iranians would welcome
Armageddon, but would they
leave the dirty deed to
others who would welcome it.)
3. How far do we go to impede or
prevent other countries from
acquiring nuclear weapons -
bombthem or rely on the corrupt
UN?
4. Non-Proliferation is only
effective when dealing with our
allies.
5. Once all nuclear weapons are
eliminated how does the world
deal with the “cheaters” –
threaten them with our pea
shooters?
A goal of “Zero” nuclear weapons is like a goal of “Zero” product defects or security infractions. If you reach these kinds of goals you can be sure someone is cheating.
Why not leave the Labs under DOE... Move the NNSA Defense Programs offices, and perhaps the NWC plants into DoD... NNSA Nonproliferation programs go back into DOE, or maybe DHS. And allow DoD to contract with the DOE labs for nuclear weaspons design and certification work on a WFO basis.
ReplyDeleteEveryone wins?
"... and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we
ReplyDeletedon’t use."
Our President, 2/24/09
Anyone taking bets on two design labs four years from now?
2/24/09 8:12 PM
ReplyDeleteThis makes too much sense to happen.
"I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."
ReplyDeletePresident Obama, 2-24-2009
Well, not exactly true but, we did invent the nuclear bomb. Can we keep it? Please!
"Anyone taking bets on two design labs four years from now?" - 9:10 PM
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't even take bets on there being ONE design lab 4 years from today.
LLNL will be removed from the NNSA design lab category.
LANL will keep hemorrhaging the remaining scientific talent until it becomes nothing but a paper tiger with no true expertise to back up claims of US stockpile stewardship.
The writing is on the wall for scientists to see at Los Alamos. Those who can't see what is happening need to have a more thorough piss tests performed to discover exactly what drug they've been ingesting.
8:04 to be exact, the bomb was built by an international group, where, to be honest, the best minds were not American, and many from enemy countries of that time, who would accordingly to today's measures would not be allowed even to get in.
ReplyDeleteAnd some of those international scientists were spies, which by today's measures would have shut the whole place down.
ReplyDelete2/25/09 11:31 PM
ReplyDeleteThe two most important persons of the Manhattan Project were, Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific leader of the project, and Gen. Leslie R. Groves, military leader of the project, they were both American, respectively.
(The known spies of Site Y (LANL): Klaus Fuchs, Ted Hall, and the brother of Ethel Rosenberg, David Greenglass.)
(During WWII, did the Nazi-Germany (the enemy) have an open embassy in Washington, D.C., e.g. where could potential atomic spies (traitors) contact Nazi-Germany, with the future risk of letting Nazi-Germany become a nuclear state, with the risk of the nuclear destruction of Washington, D.C., London, and Moscow?)
Of course Americans had to lead, but Groves obviously contributed nothing in intellectual sense, while Oppenheimer, a very smart and quite knowedgable guy, was still inferior in his knowledge to a number of foreigners involved in the project. Talking about spies, it is not known that they were in any way sabotaging the project, or slowing it down, they just wanted to pass the findings to Soviets ASAP, so as far the invention is concerned, the very important positive role of foreigners is undeniable.
ReplyDeleteI for one would like to see LANL split up. I am tired of the outrageous overhead that I have to pay to support the useless science performed here...8% for LDRD, the monies from RTBF used to keep LANCE operational, the drain on my budget to offset the costs for old and outdated facilities. The list goes on and on. Gee, my G&A would go down to about 3% from the current 38% and I wouldn't have to pay for useless organizations like PADSTE, Terry Wallace, the bozos at the Technology Transfer Office, useless monthly publications like 1663...Bring it on!
ReplyDelete2/28/09 11:49 AM, you had my vote for comment of the week.
ReplyDelete