Anonymously contributed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27nuke.html
In a challenge to the White House, the nation’s nuclear weapons laboratories have warned Congress that federal programs to extend the life of the nation’s aging nuclear arsenal are insufficient to guarantee the viability of the weapons for decades to come.
I can't see that this warning from the Labs will have any influence on Obama since he's already cut any funding for RRW/WR1 & is pushing hard for ratification of CTBT.
The JASONS have stated their opinion & so have the Labs. POGO accuses the Labs of "defending their turf" - Isn't that exactly what POGO is doing?
Why is it the "experts" on NEs are always from someplace other than our Labs?
Maintaining older NE's that do not provide the best safety & security technology makes no sense to me.
15 comments:
What an absolute joke this is. While I worked for Bret Knapp and Mike Anastasio both were responsible for tossing myself and 40 other weapon engineers out of the nuclear weapon program at Los Alamos. Not only did they toss us out, but also burned all of the work we conducted. In my case that was 30-years of work. If there is anyone affecting the viability of our nuclear arsenal it is the weapon labs themselves.
Politico had a slightly different take on the Obama administration's thoughts...
-------
At the time of the report’s release, the Obama administration indicated that the executive summary of the report, which was unclassified, might not be entirely consistent with the underlying classified study.
“While we endorse the recommendations and consider them well-aligned with NNSA’s long-term stockpile management strategy, certain findings in the unclassified Executive Summary convey a different perspective on key findings when viewed without the context of the full classified report,” National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman Damien LaVera wrote last November. “The full report addresses them comprehensively and validates our basic scientific approach to warhead life extension programs, specifically our commitment to evaluating each weapon system on a case-by-case basis and applying the best technological approach from a spectrum of options.”
LaVera reiterated that view Thursday night, adding, “The November 2009 JASON report confirmed key challenges associated with adding performance margin and incorporating modern safety and security features into aging nuclear weapons systems. It also supported the emerging bipartisan consensus on the need to preserve our workforce, build a modern nuclear security infrastructure, and enhance the science, technology and engineering at our laboratories and plants.”
------
http://www.politico.com/news/
stories/0310/35061.html
The 3 Nuke Labs Directors vs The JASON´s, is discussed in the HASC hearing, Thursday, March 25, 2010, where Sec. Tom D´Agostino amongst others testifies, at http://armedservices.house.gov/hearing_information.shtml.
There will be a future classified HASC hearing on the status of our nukes, where the 3 Nuke Labs Directors (Dr. Anastasio, Dr. Miller, Dr. Hunter), the JASON´s, and Sec. Tom D´Agostino will testify. (My remark: The NPR 2010 is said to be released in the first weeks of April ´10. (Time will tell.))
Original post: "Why is it the "experts" on NEs are always from someplace other than our Labs?"
Because the experts at the labs know that any detailed, knowledgeable comments about our nuclear weapons would be, um, classified.
Because the experts at the labs know that any detailed, knowledgeable comments about our nuclear weapons would be, um, classified.
The fact IHE based NEs are safer & more secure than HMX based explosives is not "classified". Not to mention the other technologies which have made modern NE designs safer & more secure.
And, if it involves classified info you can always have a closed classified meeting to try & explain it to our congress & JASON.
The fact IHE based NEs are safer & more secure than HMX based explosives is not "classified". Not to mention the other technologies which have made modern NE designs safer & more secure.
And, if it involves classified info you can always have a closed classified meeting to try & explain it to our congress & JASON.
April 1, 2010 5:52 AM
No mere "facts" (i.e., assertions) will convince anyone. One needs to back up the facts with actual data, which is indeed classified. Also, congresspersons are notorious for pretending classified meetings never occurred, sometimes since they are not allowed to acknowledge they happened, but usually because if there is no public record, they can't be held to account for anything they heard or agreed to.
All in all, proponents of nuclear weapons are always going to lose to opponents, due to required secrecy. The opponents are keenly aware of this, and routinely take advantage of it.
The Jasons have become a notorious collection of pinko peaceniks in recent years. Thank Goodness someone is finally standing up to their blather.
April 2, 2010 5:47 PM
Your right! Darn peaceniks.Always trying to find the road to peace! What is the world coming to? I tells ya, we gess gonna waste all them nukes, aint we?
I tells ya, we gess gonna waste all them nukes, aint we?
Nope. First you unilaterally disarm yourself & then let'um nuke you into oblivion.
April 3, 2010 12:46 PM
"First you unilaterally disarm yourself"
Duh? I think you need to think before you post. Better yet, don't post.
"unilaterally disarm yourself"
I'll give ten bucks to anyone who can tell me what is wrong with this phrase. Post the answer and I will post an email address so I can arrange to pay you.
"unilaterally disarm yourself"
I'll give ten bucks to anyone who can tell me what is wrong with this phrase. Post the answer and I will post an email address so I can arrange to pay you.
April 3, 2010 9:42 PM
:) Must be he's (April 3, 2010 9:06 PM) a DOE/NNSA employee :)
Is it possible to bilaterally disarm yourself?
April 5, 2010 4:44 AM
Interesting guess but not the right answer.
April 7, 2010 11:26 AM
How about just "disarm yourself"? The bonus adjective is not needed (oxymoron).Or you might make the argument that if you can unilaterally disarm yourself then it would be possible to bilaterally disarm yourself.
Post a Comment