Jun 3, 2009

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Updated “Safeguards” and Net Assessments

Jonathan Medalia, Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy
June 3, 2009

Summary
Limitations on nuclear testing have been on the international agenda since 1954. The United States ratified one such treaty in 1963 and two in 1990 that together bar all but underground nuclear tests with an explosive yield of 150 kilotons or less. The United States has observed a unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests since 1992. In 1996, this nation signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which would ban all nuclear explosions.

The Senate rejected the CTBT in 1999. That debate focused on such pros and cons as whether the United States could maintain its nuclear weapons without testing, whether it could verify compliance with the treaty, and how the treaty would affect nuclear nonproliferation. Another aspect to past debates was “Safeguards,” measures that this nation can take unilaterally within the treaty to protect its nuclear security. To compensate for “disadvantages and risk” they saw in the treaty regime, the Joint Chiefs of Staff conditioned their support for the 1963 treaty on four Safeguards: an aggressive nuclear test program, maintaining nuclear weapon laboratories, maintaining the ability to resume atmospheric tests promptly, and improving intelligence and nuclear explosion monitoring capabilities. Safeguards were key to securing Senate ratification of the 1963 treaty. Updated Safeguards have been part of subsequent treaty ratification efforts.

In April 2009, President Obama pledged to pursue U.S. CTBT ratification “immediately and aggressively.” A debate on the treaty would involve its pros and cons and how they have changed since 1999. CRS Report RL34394, Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Issues and Arguments, examines such issues, but no prior CRS report examined the role of Safeguards in a future debate. Like pros and cons, Safeguards could affect Senators’ net assessment of the treaty; unlike pros and cons, they are amenable to legislative bargaining and compromise. As such, they may play a key role in a CTBT debate. To that end, Safeguards could be updated, such as by adding Safeguards for the nuclear weapon production plants and strategic forces, and could be augmented with implementation measures.

While Safeguards may be part of a future CTBT debate, both supporters and opponents of the treaty could criticize them. Supporters may see augmented Safeguards as unneeded, arguing that the technical case for the treaty is stronger than in 1999. Many supporters favor further reductions and, ultimately, elimination of nuclear weapons, and view the CTBT as a stepping-stone in that direction; they could see revised Safeguards as moving in the opposite direction by supporting U.S. nuclear capabilities. Opponents assert that this nation cannot have confidence in its nuclear weapons or the program to maintain them without testing, and that nations could conceal nuclear tests. They hold that the United States has not adequately implemented existing Safeguards, and doubt it would do better with CTBT Safeguards. In their view, both the CTBT and inadequately-supported Safeguards would jeopardize U.S. security.

This report may be updated occasionally.

[Download the full CRS Report R40612 here.]

60 comments:

Anonymous said...

Frank...I do appreciate your efforts for posting these types of subjects.

However, these topics, unfortunately ( imo) are wasted on this site. No meaningful discussions follow (other than a comment or two).

That said, you know it's a waste of time since all posts here seem to deteriorate into LANL’s ”bed wetting” complaints – my poor benefits, my poor raise, my poor what-ever pathetic complaint.

I don’t know how the LANL site as a whole feels, but if this site is representative, you’ve already lost the war.

LASL is gone forever. If you don’t like it, get the hell out and stop bitching because the world has changed for better or worse and we ain’t going back to the “good old days”.

Anonymous said...

For a different take, see http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29474?utm_source=infocus

Anonymous said...

U.S. releases secret nuclear list accidentally

Report gives details about hundreds of the nation's nuclear sites, programs

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31073594/

======
Los Alamos screws up again.

Oh, wait a minute. This time it's the Whitehouse that screwed up. I say we hold some kangaroo court Congressional hearings and then have Congress issue calls to shut the Whitehouse down! Where is POGO when you really need them?

Frank Young said...

6/3/09 8:29 PM,
The report is 37 pages. I posted the summary and hosted the whole report without reading it myself. I doubt I'll read it until at least tomorrow. Give it some time.

Yes the blog gets some bizarre comments, and you see nearly all of them. I read every comment so I've become accustomed to skimming past what isn't important to me. I still find plenty of what the readers have to say is interesting and useful. Apparently others do to. The stats are public, see for yourself.

Anonymous said...

Most CRS reports that are relevant to LANL as well as many others are posted on the FAS Government Secrecy web site at http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html

This is not a anti-nuclear, or anti-government site. I have personally met (as a LANL representative) Steve Aftergood, and he is a good guy, just more interested in open government than DOE/NNSA is. A good site for all LANL employees to be aware of.

Frank Young said...

Thanks for pointing that out and yes, that is where I linked CRS Report RL34394 from in the summary. I'll add your suggestion to the blog's sidebar links.

Anonymous said...

Earlier today in the Senate, Armed Services Committee, Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 2:30 PM, To receive testimony on strategic forces programs in review of the Defense Authorization Request for FY 2010 and the Future Years Defense Program. Witnesslist: NNSA Administrator Tom D´Agostino, Maj. Gen. Donald Alston, USAF, Maj. Gen. Floyd Carpenter, USAF, Rear Adm. Stephen Johnson, US Navy, http://armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=3878, and archieved webcast, http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts/2009/June/06-03-09srsWebcast.htm

Some topics discussed:

Modernization, Science, and Infrastructure (the three priorities of the nuclear weapons complex for Tom D´Agostino and NNSA), the nuclear triad, especially the balanced nuclear triad, the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), the seeking of the arbitrary reduction of strategic nuclear weapons for the US, tactical nuclear weapons, and Russia´s 10:1 ratio in favor over US, the risk for a rush into a new START treaty before the NPR, the Moscow Treaty, the leaked sensitive nuclear report by the White House to IAEA that NYT and others picked up, Global Strike Command, QDR, the status of the nuclear mission within the Airforce and the Navy, the recent Perry-Schlesinger report to the Congress of the status of the nuclear weapons complex, and nuclear weapons within DOE and DoD, CTBT, nuclear testing, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates´critique of US doesn´t modernize its nuclear arsenal, and delivery systems, the risk of phasing out specific nuclear weapons types if the arbitrary reduction of strategic nuclear weapons becomes too large, foreign nuclear capabilities and risk for proliferation, LANL, LANSCE, Nevada Test Site (NTS), Pantex, Y-12, et cetera.

PS: The Senate should not ratify the CTBT, CTBT works against modernization of the US nuclear arsenal, and its delivery systems.

PPS: The release of "The List of Sites, Locations, Facilities, and Activities Declared to the International Atomic Agency," message from the President of the United States, May 6, 2009 (267 pages, 13 MB PDF file), is a clear sign that Pres. Obama and his administration has violated US national security, and they should be investigated by the FBI and DHS, for feeding the adversaries of US with sensitive nuclear information, like Iran, North Korea, Taliban/AQ, China, and Russia.

Anonymous said...

Frank, can you post:

(1) U.S. Accidentally Releases List of Nuclear Sites, By William Broad, Published: June 2, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/us/03nuke.html.

And:

(2) The archieved webcast of NNSA Administrator Tom D´Agostino et al, Senate, Armed Services Committee, Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Wednesday, June 3, 2009, "To receive testimony on strategic forces programs in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2010 and the Future Years Defense Program," http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts/2009/June/06-03-09srsWebcast.htm.

Anonymous said...

"..is a clear sign that Pres. Obama and his administration has violated US national security" (10:39 PM)

Are you kidding me? He's the President. He can release what ever he wants to the public.

What I found more disconcerting was the recent report that Obama wasn't even aware of the NGA (Nat. Geo-Spatial Agency -- think recon sats) until he heard an NGA worker mention the agency's name during a staged media event at a DC burger joint.

It makes you wonder... what else doesn't Obama know about the US national security apparatus and why hasn't he been properly briefed?

Anonymous said...

""..is a clear sign that Pres. Obama and his administration has violated US national security" (10:39 PM)"

From the report: (note last paragraph)

To the Congress of the United States:

I transmit herewith a list of the sites, locations, facilities, and activities in the United States that I intend to declare to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), under the Protocol Additional to the Agreement between the United States of America and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in the United States of America, with Annexes, signed at Vienna on June 12, 1998 (the ‘‘U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol’’), and constitutes a report thereon, as required by section 271 of Public Law 109–401. In accordance with section 273 of Public Law 109–401, I hereby certify that:

(1) each site, location, facility, and activity included in the list has been examined by each department and agency with national security equities with respect to such site, location, facility, or activity; and

(2) appropriate measures have been taken to ensure that information of direct national security significance will not be compromised at any such site, location, facility, or activity in connection with an IAEA inspection. The enclosed draft declaration lists each site, location, facility,
and activity I intend to declare to the IAEA, and provides a detailed description of such sites, locations, facilities, and activities, and the provisions of the U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol under
which they would be declared. Each site, location, facility, and activity would be declared in order to meet the obligations of the United States of America with respect to these provisions.

The IAEA classification of the enclosed declaration is ‘‘Highly Confidential Safeguards Sensitive’’; however, the United States regards this information as ‘‘Sensitive but Unclassified.’’ Nonetheless, under Public Law 109–401, information reported to, or otherwise acquired by, the United States Government under this title or under the U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code.

BARACK OBAMA.
THE WHITE HOUSE, May 5, 2009.

Anonymous said...

After listening to the testimony of NNSA Administrator Tom D´Agostino, the dismantlement rate (backlog) at PX will take 10-15 years to complete. He says that more important than speed, safety is the primary focus when disposing of the weapons. That’s kind of a “no brainer” in the nuclear weapons business but, is he implying that the 10’s of thousands of weapons disassembled at PX in the 70’s & 8o’ was done in an un-safe manner?

Up until around 2000, PX was able to handle an annual weapons mix workload of 3000-4000+, including the routine Disposal of 1500-2000 weapons. Now, with “Seamless-Safety” and the “Special Tool Set”, they can only dispose of ~1 weapon per day (using multiple work shifts).

He states that the weapons awaiting Dismantlement are old and have HMX based explosives and therefore require greater focus on safety. PX has been safely disassembling HMX based explosives for decades and the mix of weapons yet to be dismantled is among the easiest. There are no 31’s, 48’s, 53’s, 55’s, 56’s or 79’s , etc in that mix. (A portion of what’s to be dismantled is IHE based, not HMX)

With the number of Bays & Cells available at PX if they can’t routinely dismantle 1500+ weapons in addition to its other minimal workload, they not only need to change Contractors but, NNSA as well.

D´Agostino says that to increase the disposal rate they would have to hire & train 300+ PTs and then fire them after the work was completed. Seems like that would be a lot less costly than taking 15 years to do the job in 2-4 years. (300 PTs? - B&W sure has him snowed)

If they can cut the Dismantlement rate to 1/week I’m sure by their standards it will be even safer. Job Security in the name of safety – aka, milking it for all it’s worth.

Anonymous said...

6/3/09 9:22 PM

Shut the Whitehouse down? How would one go about shutting the Whitehouse down. Just curious.

Anonymous said...

6/4/09 12:46 AM He probably doesn't know a lot of things. The width and breadth of the federal government is too big to get ones hands around (except for you perhaps).

By the way, after review by the DOE, NRC and the DOD it was determined that national security was not compromised. In fact, all of the information contained in the release is in the public domain already.

Get a grip. There is nothing here.

Anonymous said...

"It makes you wonder... what else doesn't Obama know about the US national security apparatus and why hasn't he been properly briefed?

6/4/09 12:46 AM"

It clearly hasn't shown up on his teleprompter yet.

Anonymous said...

Job Security in the name of safety – aka, milking it for all it’s worth.

6/4/09 7:35 AM

Why do you think D'Agostino put Bechtel and BWXT in charge of LANL and LLNL as for-profit entities and that he's constantly pushing things like Six Sigma?

He knows what he is doing. His buddy Smolen has recently made out well with his new position and D'Agostino also expect to see a nice return on his "investment" in Bechtel and BWXT once he leaves NNSA.

Follow the money. It's not about science or national security any more in the NNSA complex.

Anonymous said...

"Get a grip. There is nothing here." (7:47 AM)

No big deal, huh? Tell that to Obama's man, Dr. Chu...

######
JUNE 3, 2009, 12:03 P.M. ET, WSJ

Energy Chief Says Nuclear Disclosure 'of Great Concern'

WASHINGTON -- The accidental disclosure of a report that gives detailed information about the nation's civilian nuclear sites and programs is "of great concern," and U.S. officials intend to closely examine whether it has jeopardized national security, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Wednesday.

Anonymous said...

6/4/09 11:23 AM Today is Thursday. That is old news. Pick a Thursday paper up and read it.

Anonymous said...

It clearly hasn't shown up on his teleprompter yet.

What's with the teleprompter fetish. Name one president who didn't use one (after they became widely available). I don't get it. You mean your boy Bush didn't use one (or couldn't he read it)?

Anonymous said...

""..is a clear sign that Pres. Obama and his administration has violated US national security"

This should read:
""..is a clear sign that you don't know what you are talking about"

Now get back to work.

Anonymous said...

i never checked that out before. man, obama has some real bush moments without the teleprompter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc

Anonymous said...

"i never checked that out before. man, obama has some real bush moments without the teleprompter."

Well Bush had Bush moments even with the teleprompter.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone read the letter from "Matt Kirkland" in the reader's forum? Holy shit, what an arrogant asshole! What the fuck is wrong with these X-div pricks?
Just as a question, Is there any X-div person who is not a raving asshole? And they wonder why the rest of the world wants them to lose their jobs. I hope this cocksucker not only loses his job but also gets sent to prison and gang raped.

Frank Young said...

I think you could have made your point better by posting the letter.

Anonymous said...

6/4/09 9:06 PM

Holy shit
arrogant asshole
fuck
pricks
raving asshole
cocksucker
gang raped

Another bed wetter.

Frank Young said...

I've decided to reject the comments on Matt from last night. If someone sends me his letter and it address the issues raised in the comments, then I will post the letter and allow such comments.

Anonymous said...

9:06 PM, Kirkland's letter was obnoxious but I will give him credit for standing behind his words.

As for your contribution here: nobody deserves to be sent to prison and/or gang raped for exercising their constitutional rights.

Anonymous said...

Matt has the courage of his convictions. Consequently, he won't do well with LANS. Since my security, and the security of my Nation depend on people like Matt, I'm glad to have someone with integrity on board. I wouldn't trade him for an army of Livermore designers. He has more brains than the entire team of LANS management put together. I expect his letter is spot on. I look forward to seeing it in print.

Anonymous said...

Um, i don't get it. is this the letter you are talking about? His letter was a response to a previous letter, so i posted both.

"I hope this cocksucker not only loses his job but also gets sent to prison and gang raped.

6/4/09 9:06 PM"

I hope 9:06 PM loses their job, gets sent to prison and is also gang raped (where do these people come from and why are they here?!?). maybe i'm as much of an "arrogant asshole" as kirkland, but i don't see anything wrong with the response. Since it was answered by links, his response wasn't necessary but whatever. was it the last sentence that warranted the prison buddy?

--
Editor's Note: The traffic light described by the author has been discussed in Links. See the January 22 Links or write to safety@lanl.gov for clarification.

May 11, 2009

Right turn on red after stop

In thinking about the various Laboratory intersections that are, or are not, or should be, or used to be "right turn on red after stop," I'm inspired to ask:

When I come over the bridge toward the Lab and stop on Diamond/East Jemez, at the light that swings me righ around to the security checkpoints, is that a right turn, deserving of a stop-and-go response, or is it a straight-through, where stop means stop?

It would appear that if I were going straight onto East Jemez Road past the dump, my straight-ahead choice would actually be "turning" from Diamond Drive onto Jemez. By bearing right to the security checkpoints, however, I'm sort of remaining on Diamond. Or pre-Diamond. Maybe Diamond Prime? Or skipping over a piece of Jemez and then getting left back onto Diamond. Or moving from the small intestine into the transverse colon or something.

Anyway, the real question is whether the lights on that right-bearing road to the security checkpoints are right-on-red things, or stop-and-wait things. I've seen vehicles do both and get honked at for both choices. I know someone has this answer somewhere.

--Nancy Ambrosiano

May 27, 2009

Response to right turn on red after stop

This note to the Readers' Forum was prompted by Nancy Ambrosiano's question regarding the legality of a right turn from Diamond Drive toward the vehicle access portals after a full stop when the light is red at that turn.

This question was previously answered in a January 22 Links. However, I thought that additional detail may assist others in understanding why a right turn on red after a full stop is authorized.

First, one must consider the law. One reference may be found at http://law.justia.com/newmexico/codes/nmrc/jd_66-7-105-183a5.html

A right turn on red after a full stop is authorized unless prohibited by legally authorized postings or signs. There is a sign at the light in question that says traffic must stop behind a designated line when the light is red. However, there are no signs that prohibit a right turn after a full stop at the red light. Logically, the law authorizes a right turn after a full stop.

It is clear to me that the presumably licensed drivers honking at those who make legal right turns are indeed not well versed on the law, or the successful application of logic.

--Matt Kirkland

Frank Young said...

It looks like I made the correct decision to reject those comments last night.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. President,
There are too many states these days. Please eliminate three.

PS - I am NOT a crackpot.

Abe Simpson

Frank Young said...

Barry doesn't have time to read this blog. The next time he calls for an update on LANL I'll pass along your message.

Anonymous said...

Uh, yeah, you were right to reject any of the B.S. posts about Kirkland. You should also go back and remove the one you did allow through.

Compare the posted response to the right turn thing of his with the ugly, vile, and violent response.

Here we have the full evidence. Anyone reading this blog should do so with this in mind. People exaggerate and blow things out of proportion because they can, not because it represents reality.

Keep this in mind when you read all of the doom and gloom horse shit and personal attacks that routinely appear on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Now that I have seen Matt's "arrogant" letter, I feel I can answer the original question. Yes, most X-Division employees ARE that arrogant if not more so.

Anonymous said...

I didn't see anything wrong with Kirkland's letter. It was a cogent explanation as to why cars can turn right into the colon when coming across the bridge on Diamond.

The other posters calling him a c@cksucker, etc need to either lay off the crack pipe or get a thicker skin.

Are we missing another letter somewhere?

Anonymous said...

Matt's "no BS" approach to life (and work) has made him some enemies. The contrived outrage and associated vile responses are evidence of some very sick people out there. I guess grudges are all they have left to hold on to.

Anonymous said...

Envision LANL as a great big circle of people with guns pointed inward all ready to fire at each other. Yeah, it's become a very vindictive place, more so than ever before.

Anxiety and fear due to the poor budget outlook has turned it into a place where the attitude has become one of "your loss is my gain".

In addition to this, LANS upper management is actively looking for ways to get 5% of the workforce (mostly the high cost scientists) to exit the lab. LANS can't afford to pay any more severance so they'll continue to lower the morale and just hope that 5% of staff give up and leave in disgust. The end result of all this mess can frequently be seen in some of this blog's vile posts.

Anonymous said...

Matt was not inappropriate, but I don't see how his letter had anything to do with Nancy's letter.

Anonymous said...

I very much appreciate this opportunity to comment. This comment is not about the Laboratory but it is certainly connected. The governing county board is about to elect Tony Mottilaro to be the county head official. And I ask WHY is there no community input. My issue with him is he will never answer any question directly and he thinks tooken is contained within the English Language. I have spoken with Kevin Holsappel and Min Park and numerous other individuals who are more attuned with the community and what I have ascertained from these conversations is that he is only concerned about a win from his side and does not really support others. He plans to cut 20 or 30% of county staff especially if tied to his raise and bonus structure. Per his contract language with the suggested contract, if tied to his raise he is willing to commit to 35% cuts. I think he is sleazy and spent so much money on behalf of us, look around the town and unfortunately for us all there is no payback that was promised: NO local shopping and restaureants, the Boyer company will not come now unless they receive $10,000,000 incentive bonus and Tony Motillaro supports it since he was the one who lost it n the negotations 3 years ago. My beloved and totally niave wife supported his efforts for a latte a week but she is so angry she will not speak any more to him when he left her out to dry when someone filed a lawsuit against her for logo issues. I hope that LANL the REST OF THE STORY will put this in a separate post. Let the people who pay taxes decide who is best for the job - give him as an option, mary pat there at the county and whoever else, and then go out and recruit a real leader.

Anonymous said...

Nancy's letter (re)articulated the confusion over whether the "turn" around Lake LANL and into the colon is really a turn or a straight-through.

The posted sign that says "Stop here on red" adds to the confusion. Does that mean "Stop, then turn right" or "Stop until the light changes"?

The final paragraph of Matt's letter derides those who find the situation ambiguous - calling them either stupid or ignorant (to paraphrase). That was really uncalled for.

Anonymous said...

Look, everyone is avoiding the fundamental question. Is the red right arrow a direction to stop (and stay stopped) until a green arrow occurs)? I say yes, based on precedents across the state. I.e., St. Francis onto Cerrillos south in Santa Fe. Can we gat a NM or LANL traffic engineer to speak up?

Anonymous said...

8:00 pm: "The final paragraph of Matt's letter derides those who find the situation ambiguous - calling them either stupid or ignorant (to paraphrase). That was really uncalled for."

Jeez, so sorry for your tender sensibilities. Get a thicker skin, or get prepared to be perpetually offended by life.

Anonymous said...

Better yet, 8:14, we should get a ruling from DOE Secretary Chu. EVEN better, we could lobby our Congressmen to weigh in.

After all this is important stuff!

Like bottled water.

And day care.

Anonymous said...

"8:00 pm: "The final paragraph of Matt's letter derides those who find the situation ambiguous - calling them either stupid or ignorant (to paraphrase). That was really uncalled for.""

All Matt was saying is that the stupid people that honk at you when you make a legal
right turn are either stupid or ignorant. The observation is accurate and is called for. We need more people like Matt.

Anonymous said...

A designer who is unaware that theory and practice are not always the same??? No way!!!

Good thing they are not this clueless in their modeling.

Anonymous said...

Heritage Foundation has an important report (24 pages) on Iran´s nuclear threat, "Iran´s Nuclear Threat, The Day After," By The Heritage Foundation, Iran Working Group, Heritage Special Report, SR-53, June 4, 2009, http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/upload/sr_53.pdf.

PS: I agree in the remarks by the Heritage Special Report, SR-53, June 4, 2009.

PPS: The Senate should not ratify the CTBT, CTBT works against US nuclear interests.

Anonymous said...

"He (Mortillaro) plans to cut 20 or 30% of county staff especially if tied to his raise and bonus structure." (7:10 PM)

Sounds an awful lot like Mike and the boys and girls of LANS. The infection has obviously spread throughout the whole county!

As far as Tony Mortillaro goes, I think our fine local paper should seriously consider doing some investigative reporting. The LA Monitor got lots of ad money from Boyer when the Boyer Company needed to buy the election a few years back. The Monitor needs to forget about all that moolah and concentrate on what's good for the county. The connection between Tony and the Boyer Company bears looking into very closely.

Are you listening, Mr. Damiani? Are you up to it? Maybe it would finally increase the subscription rates if the local paper started doing some serious reporting about what's really going on inside the county government.

Anonymous said...

OK, everyone join in a chorus line of... "Shut down the State Department"! Or better yet, contract it out to for-profit management by Riley Bechtel.

===
U.S. Charges Couple With Spying for Cuba

NY Times, June 5, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department charged Friday that a former State Department analyst and his wife worked as spies for Cuba for nearly 30 years, using a short-wave radio to pass on secret diplomatic information to their Cuban handlers.

Anonymous said...

Lies coming out of the NNSA continue to get bigger and bigger. Tom "Pinocchio" D'Ag has a lot of 'splan'in to do:

***********
Is there more to the story about the W76?

Knoxville News, Frank Munger, June 5th

Even though the NNSA is insisting the troubles with fogbank are in the past, Peter Stockton -- a senior investigator with the Project On Government Oversight -- insists there's more than being said by the federal folks.

Stockton said POGO's sources at the Pantex warhead assembly plant in Texas have indicated about a dozen W76 warheads are being assembled and disassembled there to maintain certification for the facilities and the technical personnel involved in those tasks. Stockton said those same sources indicated the holdup in delivering those warheads to the military was related to fogbank.

The government's production of refurbished W76 warheads has gained more attention following a May 29 report in the Los Angeles Times, which said the Navy had not yet received a single refurbished W76 warhead. The NNSA in late February announced that the first refrubished W76 warhead had been accepted by the Navy after a decade-long effort.

Asked for comment about POGO's questioning the accuracy of a statement saying the fogbank problem was resolved a year ago, NNSA spokesman Steven Wyatt said, "We stand by this and our previous statements regarding the Y-12 FPU (first production unit)."

blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/
munger/2009
/06/is_there_more_to_the_story
_abo.html

Anonymous said...

This new funding request by Rep. Lujan should help fund LANL for about a single day and it involves none of that "icky" weapons program stuff. God, I miss St. Pete!

*********
U.S. Rep. Luján introduces bill to encourage environmental research at LANL

Matthew Reichbach 6/4/09 4:18 PM

Congressman Ben Ray Luján announced today that he introduced legislation designed to encourage environmental research at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The bill would authorize $5 million in funding for LANL’s National Environmental Research Park (NERP) as well as $5 million for each of six other NERPs throughout the country.

newmexicoindependent.com/
28859/lujan-introduces-bill
-to-encourage-environmental-
research-at-lanl

Anonymous said...

Now this is interesting...

**********
Government jobs serve as recession shield

AP, June 5th, 2009

...But even if governments take the drastic step of cutting jobs, it's usually not on the scale now common among big corporations and small, locally owned shops.

It's often just too tough to lay workers off "because of the unions, because of the civil service protection," said economist Suzanne O'Keefe at Sacramento State University.

In Los Alamos County, N.M., home to the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory, more than 30 percent of the work force is employed by government, well above the national average of about 8 percent.

Many more people work in private-sector jobs related to the weapons lab, and local unemployment hovers around 3 percent. The local Stress Score is 3.23, seventh lowest among the country's more than 3,000 counties....

www.dailyillini.com/news/
champaign-urbana/
2009/06/05/
government-jobs-serve-as-
recession-shield

Anonymous said...

"Stockton said POGO's sources at the Pantex warhead assembly plant in Texas have indicated about a dozen W76 warheads are being assembled and disassembled there to maintain certification for the facilities and the technical personnel involved in those tasks."

I wonder if these "sources" are Cuban? hmmm.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that you mention Min Park, 7:10. Employed by LANL, but for a long time has spent all of his LANL work time managing his restaurants. He collects a nice LANL salary for doing nothing except working on his outside businesses.

Anonymous said...

"My beloved and totally niave wife supported his efforts for a latte a week but she is so angry she will not speak any more to him when he left her out to dry when someone filed a lawsuit against her for logo issues."

Although this is mostly unintelligible, what possible help could your wife expect from any county official over a logo lawsuit, which I assume is a trademark violation lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

Hey Frank,

It looks like Oak Ridge is lab full
of cowboys and buttheads.

US Accidentally Releases List of Nuclear Sites
New York Times - ‎Jun 3, 2009‎
One of the most serious disclosures appears to center on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which houses the Y-12 National Security Complex, ...

'Embarrassing' mistake puts US nuclear list online The Associated Press
US Releases Secret Nuclear List by Accident FOXNews
Speaker calls for probe into nuclear information leak TG Daily
Minot Daily News - New York Times

Anonymous said...

"It looks like Oak Ridge is lab full of cowboys and buttheads." - 9:28 AM

Heh, 9:28 AM, it looks like you're too stupid to even realize that ORNL (the lab) and Y-12 (the enriched Uranium processing facility) are two completely different facilities run by two separate entities (ORNL/DOE, Y-12/NNSA).

They also had absolutely nothing to do with the recent release of facility info, but I guess you're too stupid to realize that fact, too.

Let me guess, you work for LANL?

Anonymous said...

I am 9:28 AM.
I work for the DOE!

Anonymous said...

Is there anything at Oak Ridge that cannot be done elswhere?

Oak Ridge has a history of embarrassing incidents. You can say Y2K is not Oak Ridge lab but proximity means the "Oak Ridge" culture will seep over. Cultural seep and creep SC is a real issue.
Why should the taxpayer be burdened with Tennesee pork? Why should the tax-payer pay for a neutron faculity sandbox for arrogant egg-heads to play in.

Enough of the pork, get rid of NASA, NSF, NIH, NEA, pell grants, fire departments, DOE,
and NHC now. If any of this was of "TRUE VALUE" than private sector would pay for it. Enough of sucking of the tit of the goverment.

Tennesee is ranked 39th in terms of income. Do you really think that it is a coinedence that Oak Ridge is there? Oak Ridge causes this by bringing money into the state. Look at NM one of the poorest and we have LANL and Sandia.

Ex-Oak Ridge contractor charged with taking restricted materials ...A former government contract employee was indicted on charges of stealing restricted nuclear energy-related materials and putting the United States at risk, ...
www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/19/tenn.nuclear.arrest/index.html - Cached - Similar pages

Anonymous said...

6:36 pm: "Enough of the pork, get rid of NASA, NSF, NIH, NEA, pell grants, fire departments, DOE,
and NHC now. If any of this was of "TRUE VALUE" than private sector would pay for it. Enough of sucking of the tit of the goverment.

Wow - if you are a DOE/NNSA/LANL or other government employee, your crack use will really impact your clearance, and your job. If not, I hope your local cops know who you are. At the very least, please learn how to spell (perhaps from your 12 year old?).

Anonymous said...

I think (hope) that 6:36 was supposed to be satire.

Anonymous said...

"I think (hope) that 6:36 was supposed to be satire." - 8:14 AM

I don't think (fear) you realize just how much de-evolution has taken place at DOE, 8:14 AM.