Anonymously contributed:
I found this piece in the latest Bulletin of Atomic Scientist of interest. While I don't agree with everything in it, it does seem to capture the issues revolving around the future of LANL and LLNL.
Its rather lengthy, but its conclusion appears to be reasonable...
"In order to best define the role of the labs during the next 20
years, a roadmap guiding the transition to zero is needed. How long
is the long run? Should the laboratories recruit and train another
generation of scientists, or will the current cohort be sufficient? Is
new knowledge needed to perform verification, or is current technology
adequate? Related to these questions are the challenges of
maintaining morale in organizations that are losing their main mission
and of sustaining political support for the cost of running the
laboratories during the transition period."
Whole article at:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1JT5hveLdZFFpNpVtK6T9_EjkNTzZoNPouQeZGN5dvv1rfkV07cZh4J3gKrdf&hl=en&authkey=CLKovqoB
3 comments:
Regardless of the what the current politicians may say about their concern regarding the degrading conditions at the nuclear weapon labs, the path is ever downward.
NNSA struck a fatal blow to good science and staff morale when they put a "for-profit" construction company in charge of these labs.
Compliance and risk aversion is all that matters with the current lab management. It's the only thing which their big salaries and juicy bonuses depend on.
"U.S. nuclear laboratoties in a nuclear-zero world," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Volume 66, Number 4, July/August 2010, is a DANGEROUS idea, and argument for, "a nuclear-zero world," i.e. "Zero US Nukes," is NOT new, it´s already DEEPLY ROOTED in "The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals," January 10, 1963, at http://www.commieblaster.com/dl/Communist-Takeover-America.pdf;
3. "Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength." (My remark: http://www.nmatv.com/video/6037/Glenn-Beck-062410 addresses Communism, and the destroying of the US nuke arsenal.)
Conclusion
Say No To Zero US Nukes
Say No To Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Say No To Communism
Say Yes To US Nukes
Say Yes To US Missile Defense
Say Yes To US Underground Testing
August 8, 2010 8:40 PM
If Glen Beck is somebody that you feel is a knowledgeable defense analyst (which you apparently do) then anything you might posit with regard to nuclear posture is suspect. Glen Beck is an an entertainer. His expertise is in viewer ratings and large advertisement contracts.
Post a Comment