CMRR Lives...
Obama Inks Defense Spending Legislation
Jan. 3, 2013
By Diane Barnes
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON
-- President Obama on Wednesday signed off on a 14-year deadline for
completing a controversial nuclear arms laboratory and storage site,
despite a previous push by his administration to postpone the project at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
The structure
-- a planned component of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement Project -- is required to become fully operational by the
end of 2026 under the newly inked fiscal 2013 defense authorization law.
The legislation permits up to $70 million in new funds for the
building's construction in the budget year that runs through Sept. 30,
and it makes available $120 million in money previously appropriated for
the project.
The bill establishes a $3.7 billion spending cap
for the structure, which is intended to assume the responsibilities of a
decades-old plutonium facility at Los Alamos. The text would require
the Energy Department to give lawmakers a "detailed justification" for
any projected CMRR spending in excess of the threshold.
Obama
took issue with several elements of the legislation, but said "the need
to renew critical defense authorities and funding was too great to
ignore."
The bill contains "deeply problematic" restrictions on
implementing a bilateral strategic arms control treaty with Russia, the
president wrote in a statement. The section in question requires
various presidential certifications to Congress focusing on funding,
management and modernization of strategic delivery systems. Republicans
have criticized the administration for failing to follow through on
nuclear funding pledges made during the push for Senate ratification of
the accord.
Obama, though, noted that language to "adequately
amend" the New START pact provisions is contained in separate
legislation to address the budgetary "fiscal cliff," The president also
signed the latter bill into law on Wednesday.
The defense
authorization law establishes ceilings of $527.5 billion for base
Defense Department spending, $88.5 billion for overseas operations and
$17.4 billion for defense-related nuclear programs overseen by the
Energy Department. It bars further appropriations for the Medium
Extended Air Defense System, despite an administration request for
continued funding of the multinational antimissile program through
fiscal 2013.
The text calls for a special congressional panel to
examine options for altering the management of U.S. nuclear weapons
operations, which are now overseen by the Energy Department's
semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration. A number of GOP
lawmakers previously pushed to limit DOE involvement in the nuclear
arms complex, arguing the restrictions could relieve schedule and budget
overruns experienced by NNSA projects.
A group of House
Republicans failed to win approval under the legislation to fund
construction of an East Coast ballistic missile defense interceptor
installations. Still, the text mandates a Pentagon review of at least
three possible new sites, including no fewer than two locations in the
eastern United States. Long-range interceptors are currently deployed in
California and Alaska.
The measure establishes Iran's energy,
port, shipping and shipbuilding industries as “entities of proliferation
concern,” paving the way for possible new sanctions targeting those
areas.
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/obama-inks-spending-bill-nuclear-lab-mandate/
10 comments:
It is my understanding that LANS already laid off most of the contractors working on the CMRR project last year. Regular lab staff working on CMRR either took the voluntary retirement offer or were moved to other positions at LANL.
Does this article now mean that LANS will have to reconstitute the CMRR project, once again? And what will that new money be used for during the next few years? Why continue to delay and waste more money on "project planning" that creates nothing but more paperwork? The new money should be used to start building the dang thing!
This one looks like the "walking dead"...in this day and age it's too expensive, look to Oak Ridge (UPF) thats where thr last of the money is going....RIP
Seeing as how the B-61 refurb project is now going to costs several times over what CMRR was to cost, perhaps it is time to consider killing off most of the B-61 refurb project and shift the money into a new CMRR facility. Besides, it is only a matter of time until the most important political use of the B-61 -- stockpiling by NATO forces in Europe -- will soon be gone.
Perhaps we don't need so many of these antiques lying around. Perhaps, instead, we need modern, new facilities so that we can reduce our old stockpile yet be ready to rapidly produce new, modern weapons in the future if they are ever needed. That would seem a reasonable policy that even a peacenik like Greg Mello or Barack Obama could get behind if they thought it through.
We want a very limited number of nukes in the arsenal but well designed, modern facilites at hand with happy, seasoned scientists so that we are never in doubt about our capabilities to do what must be done if threats grow in the future. Sound logical?
LANL gets CMRR by 2026, LLNL is already pitching the next NIF upgrade. Hey it looks like both red faced siblings have gotten their Christmas presents. I wonder if a future administration will be able to unwind the CMRR funding in the future and leave LANL empty handed and crying like a spoiled brat that it is.
Is "new weapons design" pedalicini back at it again saying we might need a new weapons system with such margins as to not require any testing, and that CMRR serves as the facility to support a new design? And that CMRR will deter proliferation because it helps reduce the stockpile?
Is "new weapons design" pedalicini back at it again saying we might need a new weapons system with such margins as to not require any testing, and that CMRR serves as the facility to support a new design? And that CMRR will deter proliferation because it helps reduce the stockpile?
January 8, 2013 2:40 AM
That's Pedicini not pedalicini. The guy is an Italian "Stallion" not a Polack. Forget bout it! Ah yes, high tone, fast talkin, arrogant little bastard.
That's Pedicini not pedalicini. The guy is an Italian "Stallion" not a Polack. Forget bout it! Ah yes, high tone, fast talkin, arrogant little bastard.
January 9, 2013 3:21 AM
Anyone who has designed something that actually shakes the ground is entitled to a little arrogance.
"Such margins as to not require any testing?" There are a few of us 'dinosaurs'(mostly retired now of course)that recall tests at NTS where us 'whizz-i-cists' didn't have a clue why a 150KT max cred yield device went at 10KT or less. We will never buy into the 'computer simulations solve everything' mentality. You wanna make sure a device will work? Go out and shake the ground with one! Oh wait--we can't test any high-yield devices at NTS anymore. Assuming we had the infrastructure to do so (which we sold off for salvage when Bechtel took over) we STILL couldn't do it. Look at all the high-rise structures built in Vegas since our last test (back in the early '90s). You think NNSA would accept the blame for any damage caused from a 150KT test? Not bloody likely!
This country just better HOPE--if we ever need to use a nuclear weapon--that it will, indeed function as designed. Personally, I have serious doubts.
Computer simulations don't solve everything? WHAT? Somebody better tell NIF. These guys run parametric/sensitivity studies like there is no tomorrow.
Anyone who has designed something that actually shakes the ground is entitled to a little arrogance.
January 9, 2013 8:39 PM
Yeah but he "sold out!" He's claiming he doesn't need a NTS test for his new design. Bullshit!
Post a Comment