Skip to main content

Obama Official Supports Lawmaker's Opponent Over Nuclear Lab Stance

Anonymously contributed: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Global Security Newswire July 17, 2012 Obama Official Supports Lawmaker's Opponent Over Nuclear Lab Stance A California congressional delegate's purported opposition to nuclear weapons activities at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory prompted the Obama administration's special envoy for strategic stability and missile defense to endorse the lawmaker's electoral opponent last week, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. A representative of the laboratory's legislative district must acknowledge the facility's benefits, including its contribution toward a "a safe and reliable and effective nuclear stockpile," said Ellen Tauscher, a former House member who for 12 years worked alongside Representative Pete Stark (D-Calif.). "It's important that we have somebody ... with the aptitude and the attitude to do what's right, and not be either agnostic -- or working against it," Tauscher said. The former undersecretary of State for arms control and international security backed the candidacy of Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Eric Swalwell, Stark's Democratic rival. Stark, 80, has resisted U.S. financing of nuclear arms preparation efforts at the laboratory and cited the possible effects of those activities on the surrounding area. Updated congressional districting, though, would place Lawrence Livermore and the California branch of the Sandia National Laboratories back into Stark's area of representation. "We ought to pack [the laboratory] up and move it to Nevada," former LLNL spokesman Jeff Garberson quoted the lawmaker as saying. Stark campaign chief Sharon Cornu, though, on Thursday stated the congressman is "an enthusiastic supporter of basic research and the jobs [the laboratory] creates in our communities." Stark "has been very vocal in his support for the scientific and economic mission of the lab and its important work in maintaining the current nuclear arsenal," but he does not favor "an expansion of the U.S. nuclear stockpile," Cornu said.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Looks a lot like Ben Ray Lujan comments on value of science and economic development from a weapons laboratory.
Anonymous said…
Pete Stark needs to go because he's retired in place.
Anonymous said…
Little Ben Ray Lujan (D) wants LANL to be turned into a nice, fuzzy, warm "environmental research park". He doesn't like nuclear weapons are has any idea of how they relate to America's strategic defense.

Any wonder that with weak Congressmen like these serving Northern New Mexico LANL lost 12% of its workforce this spring with more layoffs and downsizing to come next year?

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

Rumor corner

LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.