LANL Still Waiting for News on Future
By John Fleck, Albuquerque Journal Staff WriterIn 1989, federal officials said Los Alamos National Laboratory's old plutonium lab was "at the end of its useful life" and launched a plan for its replacement.
That plan failed, as did another, and another after that, foundering beneath waves of uncertainty about the future of U.S. nuclear weapons.
Twenty years later, the old Chemistry and Metallurgy Research building — a concrete behemoth known simply as CMR — is still in use and a replacement remains beyond the horizon. Uncertainty about U.S. nuclear weapon policy remains, and, in the meantime, workers are literally wrapping plastic around aging radioactive waste pipes to stop the leaks.
This should come as no surprise. The place has, for years, been a leaky, seismically unsafe accident waiting to happen.
"Radioactive liquid released from the Industrial Liquid Waste System is a routine source of contamination in certain parts of CMR," the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the watchdog agency that has been trying for years to get the problems fixed, concluded in a Feb. 27 report.
But somehow we can't seem to get our act together to either replace CMR or shut it down.
The reasons go a long way toward illustrating the uncertainties facing Los Alamos and the U.S. nuclear weapons program.
In 1989, the Department of Energy told Congress that the old building was contaminated, with widespread corrosion, and asked for money to build a replacement.
A year later, Congress killed funding, saying the federal government needed to come up with an overarching plan for its nuclear arsenal and the infrastructure needed to maintain it.
In the two decades since, we have planned and replanned, formed commissions and task forces, that have never quite settled the question of what U.S. nuclear weapons are for, how many we need, and what sort of manufacturing and research infrastructure we need in response.
Assigning blame for a lack of leadership is hard. No presidential administration has ever taken the issue seriously enough to seize leadership and push for a solution. Congress has always found it easier to kick the can down the road rather than making the hard, and potentially expensive, decisions required.
In an interview about the future of the labs recently, newly elected Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., talked about the need to diversify Los Alamos' mission. I asked him what he thought ought to be done about replacing the old CMR. "That's one that I'm continuing to study," Udall told me.
Before being elected to the Senate, Udall represented Los Alamos for 10 years as a congressman. The fact that he is still studying what ought to be done about CMR does not bode well.
There are a number of paths forward. We could design and build a new generation of warheads, or work instead to extend the lives of the ones we've got. We could maintain a large arsenal, or make it far smaller, or even push toward zero nuclear weapons.
Decisions on those issues have consequences, in terms of the size of the plutonium lab at Los Alamos and a host of other issues, stretching from the Oak Ridge nuclear reservation in Tennessee to Savannah River in South Carolina to Lawrence Livermore in California.
Not deciding also has consequences. Other work is done in the old CMR, including on important nonproliferation and nuclear intelligence issues that have nothing to do with how many new nukes we might need to build. That other work has become collateral damage while we await decisions on the future of nuclear weapons.
Right now, we are — join me for the chorus — awaiting more studies.
The report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States was due out April 1 but, no surprise, has been delayed. Congress has also directed the Pentagon to produce another Nuclear Posture Review, an overarching review of the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security. We've done several of these in the nearly two decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the pipes at CMR are still leaking.
The late Ed McGaffigan, a congressional staffer who was one of the wisest people I've known on the interplay between politics and technical issues, put it simply back in 1990 when one of the many plans to replace the old lab died. "We just have to start over and get a sense of what they want to do at Los Alamos."
We are still waiting.
47 comments:
Nice article John Fleck.
While there’s nothing really new in this article it does provide a good perspective of LANL and the CMR and does point toward the continued indecision on the future of the NWC.
Flick is correct to note that Congress has always found it easier to kick the can down the road for whatever political motives but, it’s more about the future role of nuclear weapons than it is about LANL.
The upcoming 2009–2010 NPR will be the third formal review of U.S. nuclear strategy conducted since the end of the Cold War.
However, under the current administration the paths forward are fewer than the 5 noted by Fleck. There's more likely just 1:
1. Extend the lives of existing nuclear weapons while continuing to make the stockpile significantly smaller and push toward zero nuclear weapons as the end goal.
My guess is:
1. The 2009–2010 NPR will get kicked a bit further down the road to create even more delay & uncertainty about the future of nuclear weapons & LANL, et al.
Re: "Kick the can down the road", That's old school, and outdated the new and politically correct statement is: "Kick the Lab's in the pants"
Did you hear what Obama said a few minutes ago regarding "Nuclear Weapons"? Sat good-bye to LANL as we know it, and it will not take till 2010, this will happen by May 2009. God luck and good night.
U.S. defense shift would kill several big programs
Mon Apr 6, 2009
By Jim Wolf and Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States would trim U.S. missile-defense spending, cancel some big-ticket weapons programs and buy more arms for fighting insurgents in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, under a 2010 budget plan.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposed on Monday to stop buying further F-22 fighters and would kill a planned new presidential helicopter as part of an overhaul of the world's most powerful military arsenal.
He also would scale down and restructure the Army's Future Combat Systems, a Boeing-led potential $159 billion (108 billion pound) centerpiece of U.S. Army modernization.
Also cancelled under Gates' proposal would be a projected $26 billion "Transformational Satellite" program that would have swelled the coffers of rival bidders Lockheed Martin or Boeing.
The proposals for fiscal 2010, that begins October 1, would add funding for unmanned aerial vehicles and other intelligence, surveillance, communications and reconnaissance programs designed to thwart insurgents.
"As I told the Congress in January, this budget represents an opportunity, one of those rare chances to match virtue to necessity, to critically and ruthlessly separate appetites from real requirements," Gates told a news conference.
Gates' proposal would cut missile defense spending by $1.4 billion in 2010; end production of Lockheed Martin's F-22 fighter at 187 aircraft; scrap a $15 billion competition for new rescue helicopters, and buy 31 more of Boeing' F/A-18 fighter jets in 2010.
It would revamp the way the Navy builds destroyers, scrap a new cruiser program, and terminate a $13 billion presidential helicopter program run by Lockheed and AgustaWestland, a unit of Italy's Finmeccanica.
At the same time, it would boost funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being built by Lockheed with co-development funding from eight countries.
Defense STOCKS GAIN
Defense stocks, beaten down for weeks on fears that years of unbridled growth in U.S. defense budget was finally ending, rebounded following Gates' presentation.
"There was a cloud hanging over those stocks, people wondering what was going to happen, what the announcements were going to be," said Giri Cherukuri, head trader Oakbrook Investments. "Now that we got a more definitive answer about where the Defense Department is heading, I think that got rid of some of the uncertainty."
The Standard & Poor's Aerospace and Defense index ended up 3.6 percent.
The proposals, if approved by the White House and Congress, would pump billions of new dollars into unmanned aerial systems that would give U.S. troops new capabilities, especially in irregular conflicts.
Gates put the final touches on his proposals this weekend even as North Korea's missile launch sparked renewed debate over futuristic programs including Boeing's planned Airborne Laser, a modified 747 jumbo jet designed to zap missiles soon after they are launched.
The $10-billion-a-year missile shield is the Pentagon's costliest arms development project. Gates proposed turning the airborne laser into a research program, adding $700 million to regional missile defense programs, and said the Pentagon would put off buying more ground-based interceptors for a site in Alaska.
CONGRESS WILL HAVE FINAL SAY
Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop Grumman -- respectively the Pentagon's three biggest suppliers by sales -- each have big stakes in elements of the layered antimissile shield.
Six U.S. senators -- an independent, Republicans and Democrats -- urged President Barack Obama to restore full funding for missile defense.
"The threat posed by rogue states with ballistic missiles has been underscored by Iran and North Korea's recent missile tests," they wrote.
Lawmakers have the final say on the budget.
Lockheed shares ended up 8.9 percent at $73.28, Northrop rose 9 percent to $47.94 and Raytheon rose 8.3 percent to $41.66. Even Boeing, which had been down for most of the session, ended slightly higher, up 1.3 percent at $38.16.
"There was good news for Lockheed Martin. The F-22 in the Gates budget would be capped at 187 planes, that is not what Lockheed Martin was hoping for," said Richard Tortoriello, aerospace and defense analyst with Standard & Poor's Equity Research. "But the budget significantly increases funding for the F-35, the joint strike fighter. That's great news."
If Congress takes Obama's heed, they may cut the living shit out of LANL, in this budget tight era, we will be the first to go down. Now you all can really start whinning.....
OK I must ask: Who is the man/women with the Golden hand?
That's whining, dipshit. Whining.
"Whinners (sp) no longer work at LANL; they've all left by now.
Whinning or Whining, you may now began....Wa,wa,wa, No more need for the out-dated bolg.oh no!
Oh, no, Pinky!
Your bolg is out of date!
I'm glad you are still running your blog, though. Too bad about all the middle-schoolers posting on it, however.
[Imagine June Cleaver's voice]
"You just wait until your father comes home and finds out you have been posting on that LANL blog again, young man! You'll be grounded for a month!"
Should I be trying to sell my house and finding another job? Or, should I try to be optimistic that Mikey and the boys will save the day?
Well, 4:59. Taking as a measure of your intelligence and obvious good common sense the fact that you chose to ask for advice on this blog, I'd strongly recommend that you put all of your trust and faith in Dr. Anastasio and his crack team of administrators.
Tom Udall is a joke - I can't believe he was elected to the Senate. It takes him almost 10 years to study! I don't find him responsive to any of our community concerns.
I personally thought that Dr. C. Paul Robinson, Dr. Stephen M. Younger, Dr. John S. Foster, Adm. Michael Mullen, Gen. Kevin Chilton, SECDEF Robert Gates in conjunction with Heritage Foundation would have established a pro-nuclear weapons alliance that would have persuaded the Congress to approve new nuclear weapons systems and delivery systems.
But, I was wrong, I thought 9/11/01 should have been the future baseline (=wake-up call) to understand for the Congress that it would be in the US national interest to adopt future nuclear weapons systems and delivery systems.
But, I was wrong, once again, and if Iran test an atomic bomb, the Taliban, and/or al-Qaeda seized the Pakistani nukes, Pres. Obama and Congress would do nothing with 99.99% certainty regarding the future US nuclear weapons policy.
But, if terrorists attacked Washington, DC with a stolen nuke? It would be too late for Congress and Pres. Obama to adopt to a future US nuclear weapons policy, and missile defense.
In summary: Do not forget political correctness is lethal for thyself (US), not the adversaries of US.
Tom Udall is a joke - I can't believe he was elected to the Senate. It takes him almost 10 years to study! I don't find him responsive to any of our community concerns.
I find no evidence Udall cares one iota about our community concerns nor for national security in the face of a world actively proliferating nuclear weapons.
This proliferation continues in the face of those who said ceasing testing would be a disincentive to proliferation, and those who said reducing the stockpile to less than 2,500 would be a disincentive to proliferation.
Instead, these actions have coincided with rampant proliferation by unstable nations including Pakistan, India, Lybia, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
So the president's latest plan is to do the same thing over, by reducing nukes yet again, and expecting a different result.
And Udall only cares about...uh...it's hard to know what he cares about. He didn't have to campaign much because straight-party-ticket-voters in NM practically guaranteed the election of Udall to the post, even if he turned out to be a potted plant.
All evidence supports the observation that Udall is, indeed, a potted plant.
One term is all we can hope (in futility) for.
6:13PM.
Are you on crack? Nuclear weapons are useless against terrorists. They ARE revising the nuclear weapons posture to reflect this "new" threat. By cutting nukes to preferentially fund weapons thet are beneficial in this "post 9/11 world."
Nuclear weapons policy and worldview by Pres. Barack Obama. (Extremely dangerous and naive for US and her allies.)
From Sweetness & Light:
Obama Spins Fantasy Of Nuclear-Free World
From a heavily blinkered Associated Press:
Obama outlines sweeping goal of nuclear-free world
By Jennifer Loven, AP White House Correspondent
Prague - Declaring it "matters to all people everywhere," President Barack Obama promised on Sunday to lead the world into a nuclear-free future, giving a hawkish edge to a peacenik pursuit even as North Korea upstaged him with the launch of a long-range rocket that theoretically could carry a warhead.
Obama made his pledge before 20,000 flag-waving Czechs outside the gates of picturesque Prague Castle. He chose a nation that peacefully threw off communism and helped topple nuclear power Soviet Union as the backdrop for presenting an ambitious plan to stop the global spread of dangerous weapons.
[H]e said the United States, with one of the world´s largest arsenals and the only nation to have used an atomic bomb, has a "moral responsibility" to start taking steps now.
It is not only a lofty goal. Gary Samore, Obama´s arms control coordinator, said the plan has a strategic aim: to give the U.S. extra leverage in opposing the pursuit of nuclear arms in adversarial countries such as North Korea and Iran. "We are trying to seek the moral high ground," Samore said...
North Korea´s launch, in the works for weeks, could not have been better timed to achieve the reclusive communist country´s goal of grabbing attention...
Obama said the North Korean action served only to underscore the need for the actions he outlined.
"Rules must be binding," he said. "Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."...
To combat the risk from countries, and possibly terrorists, with nuclear weapons, Obama said he would:
-"Immediately and aggressively" seek ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, which he may not get. Signed by President Bill Clinton, it was rejected by the Senate in 1999. Overall, 140 nations have ratified the ban. But they include only 35 of the 44 states that possess nuclear technology, and the United States is the most prominent holdout.
- Host a summit within the next year on nuclear weapons.
- Undertake a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material worldwide within four years.
- Try to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by providing more resources and authority for international inspections and mandating "real and immediate consequences" for countries that violate the treaty.
- Pursue by the end of the year a new treaty with Russia to reduce the two nations´nuclear arsenals.
- Seek a new international treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons.
- Build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation...
As he has throughout the trip, Obama emphasized priorities that closely match Europe´s, such as promising to tackle climate change. But he had requests as well. He asked European nations to accept detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison, which he has ordered closed, and to bring in Turkey as a member of the European Union to send a positive signal to the Muslim world.
Turkey is the next and final stop on Obama´s European tour.
As always, Mr. Obama (or rather his teleprompter) blames America first:
[H]e said the United States, with one of the world´s largest arsenals and the only nation to have used an atomic bomb, has a "moral responsibility" to start taking steps now.
But here is Mr. Obama´s (and the AP´s) problem. Or, rather, one of them. They are pig ignorant of history:
He chose a nation that peacefully threw off communism and helped topple nuclear power Soviet Union as the backdrop for presenting an ambitious plan to stop the global spread of dangerous weapons.
Czechoslovakia would have been crushed like a small, juicy bug if it had not been for the United States - and specifically - its nuclear arsenal.
To pretend otherwise is simply a blatant lie, even for Mr. Obama (and the AP).
The US´s large ´nuclear arsenal´should get the credit for Czechoslovakia now being free. Anf for the freedom of countless other countries.
But we can´t have that. In fact, we must do away with that power for good-for good.
We must make sure we have no more military power than the moral paragons of Russia and China. Or, actually far less, since without our nuclear advantage we lag behind them in real military strength.
And speaking of this administration´s unadulterated ignorance of history:
It is not only a lofty goal. Gary Samore, Obama´s arms control coordinator, said the plan has a strategic aim: to give the U.S. extra leverage in opposing the pursuit of nuclear arms in adversarial countries such as North Korea and Iran. "We are trying to seek the moral high ground," Samore said.
Could Mr. Samore cite one example of how having the ´moral high ground´has ever helped any country achieve victory?
With the possible and singular exception of Great Britain versus India and Gandhi.
And North Kora is no Great Britain.
This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Sunday, April 5th, 2009 at 11:17 am.
(http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-outlines-naive-goal-of-nuke-free-world)
PS. To give up US nukes, i.e. zero US nukes, is to arrive at a gunfight armed only with knifes whilst the adversaries of US might have nuclear weapons. (This should not be accepted as nuclear weapons policy for US, it is treason and surrender.)
PPS. Frank, other blogs are posting information of the (nuclear) naivite of Pres. Obama and his Administration, are you uninterested of nuclear weapons policy, (strategic) arms control, missile defense, foreign policy, politics, and history?
PPPS. I predict that Iran will test an atomic bomb before January 20, 2013, Noon (=12 PM), EST, i.e. Obama´s first term, and hopefully only term, as well as the nuclear weapons in Pakistan will have the risk to be overtaken by the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and severely threaten US and her allies.
"PPS. Frank, other blogs are posting information of the (nuclear) naivite of Pres. Obama and his Administration, are you uninterested of nuclear weapons policy, (strategic) arms control, missile defense, foreign policy, politics, and history?"
It depends. Is anything good on tv tonight?
4/6/09 7:45 PM
Low-yield nuclear weapons will work well enough against terrorists, otherwise you give them carte blanche to attack US with nukes, whilst you do nothing in retaliation.
I'll bite. How low yield?
LANL Future=bleak
4/6/09 7:45 PM said
"Low-yield nuclear weapons will work well enough against terrorists, otherwise you give them carte blanche to attack US with nukes, whilst you do nothing in retaliation."
How about a few dozen GPS guided 500 lbs smart bombs or Cruise missiles instead... or maybe a SEAL Team with a 50 cal sniper rifle.
Since 9/11 every terrorist killed by the US has met their end by way of a USAF or Navy bomb... or bullet fired by a US solider or marine. Nukes are of zero tactical value in the war on terror (aka Overseas Contingency Operation).
4/6/09 9:11 PM
Low-yield is essentially below 10 kt, so yields below 10 kt could be working, due to the 24/7 threat environment, would tell you if 10 kt, 5 kt, 1 kt, or 0.1 kt is best for your own protection.
4/6/09 4:10 PM asked," OK I must ask: Who is the man/women with the Golden hand?"
Oh that would be our fat golden pecker Terry Wallace. Haven't you noticed how cocky and vindictive he is and how many people he has sticking out of his ass?
Livermore makes the lowest yield weapons.
5:53 pm: "Tom Udall is a joke - I can't believe he was elected to the Senate. I don't find him responsive to any of our community concerns."
Well, I hope US Senators are not primarily involving themselves with "community concerns" - the Constitution envisioned that as the purview of the House of Representatives (to "represent," get it?). The Senate was established to concern itself with matters affecting the country as a whole; hence the equal number per State. Take a civics class. Domenici was an aberration.
10:14 pm: "Livermore makes the lowest yield weapons."
Yeah, but they didn't plan it that way - it's just how the tests turned out.
4/6/09 9:38 PM
I don´t disagree with your post, but I was analysing US nuclear deterrence, and how to best prevent a future terrorist nuke attack against US.
LLNL adopted to the post-9/11 world by chance.
It's over, folks. Expect Congress and the new Administration to begin making drastic cuts to the NNSA's budget. Even TA-55 work will soon be throttled way back. Examine this quote from the NY Times article below:
"If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step." - Obama
Let that quote sink in for a minute. It looks like NNSA is going to become a sacrificial lamb to somehow demonstrate to the world we mean business about nuclear weapons reduction. IMHO, it's extremely misguided, but it is what I think is about to happen.
LANL should have diversified while it still had the chance. Sen. Udall is just trying to make sure he has a mea culpa for when all this crap hits.
For a while, it looked like LANL might have extra cleanup and construction work to help take up the weapons budget slack. The construction work will be nixed and we'll be left with a big boost in funds for cleanup, but not much else. Can you say Rock Flats II?
www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/04/06/
06greenwire-obamas-nonproliferation-plan-
heralds-changes-f-10439.html
********
Obama's nuclear nonproliferation plan heralds changes for DOE labs
- NY Times, April 6, '09
President Obama's plans for reducing the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons and production of fissile materials signal changes ahead for the nation's nuclear strategy and weapons labs.
"The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy," Obama said in a speech yesterday in Prague.
"If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step."
...Obama also said he plans to host a global summit on nuclear security within the next year.
- DOE impact -
All of these goals will have serious consequences for the Energy Department's nuclear weapons labs, which have been the subject of intense debate recently.
...Efforts to shrink the weapons stockpile or Obama's decision to cancel work on the advanced nuclear weapon known as the "reliable replacement warhead" in his recent budget puts into question NNSA's size and budget for the future, said Philip Coyle, a senior adviser at the World Security Institute and a former top official for nuclear operations and testing in the Defense Department.
"Assumptions made about how many nuclear warheads might be produced in the future are key to sizing the NNSA production complex for the future," Coyle said at a recent congressional hearing. "Now that the Obama administration has made a decision to halt the RRW, the production workload for complex transformation can be cut in half," he said.
10:14 pm: "Livermore makes the lowest yield weapons."
Yeah, but they didn't plan it that way - it's just how the tests turned out.
4/6/09 10:44 PM
Agreed, but don't forget they are the lead-lab for non-one point safe designs.
I don´t disagree with your post, but I was analysing US nuclear deterrence, and how to best prevent a future terrorist nuke attack against US.
4/6/09 10:52 PM
I think the deterrence strategy could work against a terrorist state but short of that, I think conventional options are considered more realistic.
Of course, the resulting effects of fallout on allies and civilian populations are always a real concern (well, short of an all out nuc war).
This proliferation continues in the face of those who said ceasing testing would be a disincentive to proliferation, and those who said reducing the stockpile to less than 2,500 would be a disincentive to proliferation.
Instead, these actions have coincided with rampant proliferation by unstable nations including Pakistan, India, Lybia, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.4/6/09 7:11 PM
Non-Proliferation has worked primarily among our allies. The most likely future is that proliferation of nuclear weapons will continue in countries that are “unstable, tyrannical & threatening”. For countries like this you can't stop nuclear proliferation even if you try.
Instead of America doing all the huffing & puffing perhaps we should just let them proceed in hopes the rest of the world will get more involved. Why should America be the only country to try & pull the proliferators back from the brink?
"Could Mr. Samore cite one example of how having the ´moral high ground´has ever helped any country achieve victory?
With the possible and singular exception of Great Britain versus India and Gandhi."
South Africa, Eastern Europe at the fall of the USSR, Phillippines, Ukraine (orange revolution). Probably some others, but this was off the top of my head.
4/6/09 8:13 PM
Dude, do you realize the Ronald Regan, the most conservative president we have ever had, tried to reduce our nuclear arsenal to zero while in office? Maybe you weren't in country back in those days or maybe you are just another ideologue who marches to Rush's drum beat. Either way you should try educate yourself before you embarrass yourself again.
"If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step." - Obama
What do you suppose Obama actually means by this? The US isn't producing any new weapons-grade materials; in fact we've been moving steadily in the opposite direction for a decade or more.
We need to look to the rest of this paragraph for the answer:
"Text of President Obama in Prague
By The Associated Press – 1 day ago
Text of President Barack Obama's remarks in Prague, Czech Republic, on Sunday, as prepared for delivery and provided by the White House.
___
Thank you for this wonderful welcome. Thank you to the people of Prague. And thank you to the people of the Czech Republic. Today, I am proud to stand here with you in the middle of this great city, in the center of Europe. And — to paraphrase one my predecessors — I am also proud to be the man who brought Michelle Obama to Prague.
I have learned over many years to appreciate the good company and good humor of the Czech people in my hometown of Chicago. Behind me is a statue of a hero of the Czech people — Tomas Masaryk. In 1918, after America had pledged its support for Czech independence, Masaryk spoke to a crowd in Chicago that was estimated to be over 100,000. I don't think I can match Masaryk's record, but I'm honored to follow his footsteps from Chicago to Prague.
For over a thousand years, Prague has set itself apart from any other city in any other place. You have known war and peace. You have seen empires rise and fall. You have led revolutions in the arts and science, in politics and poetry. Through it all, the people of Prague have insisted on pursuing their own path, and defining their own destiny. And this city — this Golden City which is both ancient and youthful — stands as a living monument to your unconquerable spirit.
When I was born, the world was divided, and our nations were faced with very different circumstances. Few people would have predicted that someone like me would one day become an American president. Few people would have predicted that an American president would one day be permitted to speak to an audience like this in Prague. And few would have imagined that the Czech Republic would become a free nation, a member of NATO and a leader of a united Europe. Those ideas would have been dismissed as dreams.
We are here today because enough people ignored the voices who told them that the world could not change.
We are here today because of the courage of those who stood up — and took risks — to say that freedom is a right for all people, no matter what side of a wall they live on, and no matter what they look like.
We are here today because of the Prague Spring — because the simple and principled pursuit of liberty and opportunity shamed those who relied on the power of tanks and arms to put down the will of the people.
We are here today because twenty years ago, the people of this city took to the streets to claim the promise of a new day, and the fundamental human rights that had been denied to them for far too long. Sametova revoluce — the Velvet Revolution taught us many things. It showed us that peaceful protest could shake the foundation of an empire, and expose the emptiness of an ideology. It showed us that small countries can play a pivotal role in world events, and that young people can lead the way in overcoming old conflicts. And it proved that moral leadership is more powerful than any weapon.
That is why I am speaking to you in the center of a Europe that is peaceful, united and free — because ordinary people believed that divisions could be bridged; that walls could come down; and that peace could prevail.
We are here today because Americans and Czechs believed against all odds that today could be possible.
We share this common history. But now this generation — our generation — cannot stand still. We, too, have a choice to make. As the world has become less divided it has become more interconnected. And we have seen events move faster than our ability to control them — a global economy in crisis; a changing climate; the persistent dangers of old conflicts, new threats and the spread of catastrophic weapons.
None of these challenges can be solved quickly or easily. But all of them demand that we listen to one another and work together; that we focus on our common interests, not our occasional differences; and that we reaffirm our shared values, which are stronger than any force that could drive us apart. That is the work that we must carry on. That is the work that I have come to Europe to begin.
To renew our prosperity, we need action coordinated across borders. That means investments to create new jobs. That means resisting the walls of protectionism that stand in the way of growth. That means a change in our financial system, with new rules to prevent abuse and future crisis. And we have an obligation to our common prosperity and our common humanity to extend a hand to those emerging markets and impoverished people who are suffering the most, which is why we set aside over a trillion dollars for the International Monetary Fund earlier this week.
To protect our planet, now is the time to change the way that we use energy. Together, we must confront climate change by ending the world's dependence on fossil fuels, tapping the power of new sources of energy like the wind and sun, and calling upon all nations to do their part. And I pledge to you that in this global effort, the United States is now ready to lead.
To provide for our common security, we must strengthen our alliance. NATO was founded 60 years ago, after Communism took over Czechoslovakia. That was when the free world learned too late that it could not afford division. So we came together to forge the strongest alliance that the world has ever known. And we stood shoulder to shoulder — year after year, decade after decade — until an Iron Curtain was lifted, and freedom spread like flowing water.
This marks the 10th year of NATO membership for the Czech Republic. I know that many times in the 20th century, decisions were made without you at the table. Great powers let you down, or determined your destiny without your voice being heard. I am here to say that the United States will never turn its back on the people of this nation. We are bound by shared values, shared history, and the enduring promise of our alliance. NATO's Article 5 states it clearly: an attack on one is an attack on all. That is a promise for our time, and for all time.
The people of the Czech Republic kept that promise after America was attacked, thousands were killed on our soil, and NATO responded. NATO's mission in Afghanistan is fundamental to the safety of people on both sides of the Atlantic. We are targeting the same al-Qaida terrorists who have struck from New York to London, and helping the Afghan people take responsibility for their future. We are demonstrating that free nations can make common cause on behalf of our common security. And I want you to know that we Americans honor the sacrifices of the Czech people in this endeavor, and mourn the loss of those you have lost.
No alliance can afford to stand still. We must work together as NATO members so that we have contingency plans in place to deal with new threats, wherever they may come from. We must strengthen our cooperation with one another, and with other nations and institutions around the world, to confront dangers that recognize no borders. And we must pursue constructive relations with Russia on issues of common concern.
One of those issues that I will focus on today is fundamental to our nations, and to the peace and security of the world — the future of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.
The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light. Cities like Prague that had existed for centuries would have ceased to exist.
Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black markets trade in nuclear secrets and materials. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered in a global nonproliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point when the center cannot hold.
This matters to all people, everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city — be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague — could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences may be — for our global safety, security, society, economy, and ultimately our survival.
Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be checked — that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. This fatalism is a deadly adversary. For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.
Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st. And as a nuclear power _as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon — the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it.
So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.
First, the United States will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons.
To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: as long as these weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies — including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.
To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia this year. President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding, and sufficiently bold. This will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.
To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.
"And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons."
Another famous Obama strawman: let's say that something exists (or doesn't exist) so that we can look like heroes when we propose to eliminate (create) it!
The Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty has been rattling around the UN since the Clinton administration. FMCT verification is as much of a joke as NPT verification (cf. North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria...).
Anonymous at 4/6/09 4:59 PM asks:
"Should I be trying to sell my house and finding another job?"
It's too late to try to sell your house. Better to hope for another controlled burn!
Read the recent book "The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan" for a view of Reagan's hope of eliminating nuclear weapons. Don't dismiss this book because of the subject: it's actually quite good.
Obabama's speeches sound a lot like Reagan's, and, also, like Eisenhower's in the later days. I think it is easy, past a point, to hate having the power and responsibility to make a decision to incinerate millions of innocent people. It speaks well of our presidents that they want a way out of this situation. Maybe there is one.
That said, I'm working on my "NNSA exit plan". I think the future model for all the NNSA labs is Y-12. If you don't know what Y-12 is or how it works, time to learn now.
Science is moving to the science labs, and the NNSA labs are going into maintenance mode, with the primary work being custodial and cleanup. There's a reason they picked a tunnel-digging, earth-moving company like Bechtel to run the show. The days of NNSA science are numbered.
"That said, I'm working on my "NNSA exit plan". I think the future model for all the NNSA labs is Y-12." (9:54 AM)
Lots of TSMs at LANL seems to be working on an exit plan. You're in good company.
The chances that the NNSA labs will somehow pull out from this downward plunge seem to have diminished. Rumors are also growing that lab HR is preparing a layoff plan, so the exit plan for some employees may turn out to be involuntary, depending on the outcome of the next fiscal budget.
All the while, our useless Director is almost no where to be seen or heard. He hasn't even bothered to update his Director's Web Page since the first issue back in early January. What a sick joke this man has become as LANL's leader.
"I think the future model for all the NNSA labs is Y-12."
Do you mean they will turn into production plants? Or do you mean something else by this.
Lots of TSMs at LANL seems to be working on an exit plan. You're in good company.
Lots of TSMs at LANL have already executed their exit plan and left.
SSPed
I was hired last year as a limited term employee. Should I be worried?
Since we were attacked on 9/11, what effect did all of our WMDs have on the terriorist. Not one thing, we were attacked even with all of the "bombs". So make another argument as to why we need more, other than you need your job.
whine, whine, whine.
Fellow posters! Be aware that someone is creating sets of messages that portray, on this blog, a selfish, incompetent and semi-literate community! I suspect that almost all the anonymous posts are submitted by the monster MECHEL only to create that impression.
It is possible that this is the only legitimate submission.
I plan to leave for new job. The worry is to sell my house. Will LANL start new hiring due to clean up and stimulus plan? I saw LANL posted an ad saying many jobs in LANL.
I'm an outsider and would like to know an insider's opinion on the present, past and future productivity
of LANL. What, for example, allows this lab to continue work on unclassified research when Bell Labs quietly disappeared? Perhaps this is the wrong question - Is there much research that is not related to secret projects?
Anything more on ADTR's safety/security standown?
"I was hired last year as a limited term employee. Should I be worried?" - 1:08 PM
Any lab layoff plan typically begins by first getting rid of limited term employees. If LANL's budget comes up short for next year (which is likely) then, yes, you need to worry. However, it's clear that Congress wants to dump lots of money on LANL for cleanup work, so if you are working in this particular area then perhaps you'll do OK. If you are a facility engineer (CES) then you'll also be in a protected class. Conversely, if you're doing scientific research at LANL then you'll be prime RIF bait.
Bechtel and BWXT seem to have a strong desire to purge scientific research from the lab because it is: (a) costly to fund, (b) has unreliable funding sources, and (c) creates security and safety problems which hurt the PBIs (i.e., their profits). A RIF at LANL will be useful to Bechtel and BWXT for implementing a workforce restructuring program that rapidly chances the nature of the place.
LANL Still Waiting for News on Future
By John Fleck, Albuquerque Journal
There's no need to wait for future news releases because it's already become pretty clear. LANL has no real future given the current path that it is on.
Post a Comment