BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog authors serve as moderators. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Nuclear Security Official Hints at Leaner, Less Costly Weapons Complex

Nuclear Security Official Hints at Leaner, Less Costly Weapons Complex
By Walter Pincus
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A11


The best status report on the U.S. nuclear weapons program and its future was delivered last Tuesday at a session of the House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development, where the head of the program declared, "We must stop pouring money into an old, Cold War complex that is too big and too expensive."
The speaker was Thomas P. D'Agostino, who heads the National Nuclear Security Administration, which runs the nuclear weapons complex and is a carryover from the Bush administration. As he had done before, D'Agostino pressed Congress to fund "urgent" change, while acknowledging that President Obama will favor a reduction in the nuclear weapons stockpile.
For example, he noted that over the past two years, the projection of the number of new plutonium triggers that will be needed to keep the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile reliable and secure has steadily dropped from 450 a year to 20.

The Rest of the Story

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bush's administration started this mess and, incredibly, his architect is still with us.

Anonymous said...

And now the coup de grĂ¢ce....

Ironic - the word verification for this had a substring "gestapo"

Anonymous said...

Leaner, less costly == more layoffs.

Anonymous said...

Really isn't it time to stop funding weapons designers and modelers to continue the mediocre irrelevant work they have been doing for the past 17 years since testing ended? Of course there is expertise that we need to retain, but it could be maintained for about 10% of what is currently being spent. Who are we kidding? Be honest, how much of what goes on in WCI is required to be sure we have a working weapon when we need one? And don't forget how much we could trim by getting rid of excessive unnecessary managers.

Anonymous said...

9:02, if you read the threads on the W76 and Fogbank you'd realize the expertise to maintain is long gone.

The current logic in gov circles is that the leanest, cheapest complex is no complex at all. And that mission is pretty well accomplished de facto, it just takes some paperwork to make it all formal.

Anonymous said...

March 29, 2009 9:00 PM

That isn't the current logic. At least I have never read that. Your making stuff up again.

Anonymous said...

I think the accusation of making things up is out of line. No one here is all-knowing nor should reasonable speculation be banned.

Just looking at this story today....
President Obama gives speech at Stasbourg

"This is our generation, this is our time and I am confident we can meet any challenges as long as we are together," Obama said.

He drew huge applause when he said he is setting a dramatic goal of "a world without nuclear weapons."


Sure sounds to me that the other poster might have a reasonable point.

Blog Archive