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. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Monday, December 1, 2014

New nukes

Interesting article on new nukes:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-nukes-20141130-story.html#page=2

Funny how the architects of stockpile stewardship want to cry wolf and return to testing. I thought NIF, QMU, and the subcritical program eliminated the need for new warheads and testing. Article also discusses the LLNL "Frankenbomb" idea that was DOA, especially with the navy. Johnny Foster still has it going on though.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Read the comments - obviously some from well informed Gov't/Think tank/Historian types - Universal Replacement Warhead (didn't LLNL win the design competition, as I recall ?) - the Frankenbomb ? - or go back to limited testing ?

Anonymous said...

Thank is the Comments Section in the LA Times following the article

Anonymous said...

If you don't remember the program was called the RRW -- Reliable Replacement Warhead - it's hard to believe you were associated with either lab.

And yes, the LLNL design was determined by NNSA to be superior for the defined requirements.

Then Domenici killed it because that was the wrong political answer.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I remember the RRW paper study. It was cancelled by Obama in 2009. No new nukes for the lab. Call a whambulance. Trying to resurrect a cancelled program is truly pathetic.

Anonymous said...

And yes, the LLNL design was determined by NNSA to be superior for the defined requirements.

I though the LANL design was determined to be better but LANL had the meth scandal so they gave it to LLNL and then test everyone for drugs.

Time to start learning Mandarin so that we can speak to our colonial masters.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I remember the RRW paper study.

December 3, 2014 at 8:15 PM

If you were involved, you know it was much more than a "paper study." It was the most focused and comprehensive analysis of a new design since the cessation of testing. The new design ideas were ground-breaking and unique, with plenty of backup from old testing data and new subcrit and hydro test data to support them. Many new weapon designers were tutored through the process by experience folks, and that aspect was invaluable to the current capabilities of the program.

Anonymous said...

You just perfectly defined what a paper study is. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

The RRW is dead. Bury it.

There is no political will in this country to resurrect it. Only the approaching outbreak of WW III might cause our Congress to reconsider this option. We are a long way off from that scenario.

Anonymous said...

I agree the RRW is dead and was dead on arrival. Without testing there will be no new nukes. Remember Drell's comment about new weapons without testing.

Anonymous said...

I though the LANL design was determined to be better but LANL had the meth scandal so they gave it to LLNL and then test everyone for drugs.

December 3, 2014 at 8:43 PM


The meth scandal you refer to is the Quintana event, where numerous classified files were discovered in a trailer that served as a meth dealing den. While we are at it, let's go ahead and recall just which part of the Lab Quintana worked in. Yes, it was in weapons.

Hint: the AD for weapons for the time when Quintana was hauling classified files into a known meth den is now the Lab Director. While the meth scandal may have derailed the LANL design, it did nothing to slow down Charlie's rise to the top.

Priceless.

Anonymous said...

Only the approaching outbreak of WW III might cause our Congress to reconsider this option. We are a long way off from that scenario.

December 4, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Actually, the actions of Putin in Ukraine and the rise of IS in the Middle East pretty accurately mirror the "approaching outbreak" of WWII, which most people also missed at the time. Pearl Harbor with nukes will be a lot more interesting.

Anonymous said...

We won't design new weapons, or resume testing, until a justification is found that does not admit the actual truth: We don't really know how reliable our nuclear enterprise is. A couple generations of scientists have been called upon periodically to give the only politically acceptable answer, yes of course our stockpile is still reliable, but is it? Do we really believe that in our hearts of hearts?

Anonymous said...

Do we really believe that in our hearts of hearts?

December 5, 2014 at 1:21 PM

I guess you could calculate it if you knew the data. Oh, wait, that's what is actually done.

Anonymous said...

"I guess you could calculate it if you knew the data. Oh, wait, that's what is actually done.

December 5, 2014 at 2:17 PM"

Ah yes, if you knew what I know, you would also believe. But, I can't tell you what I know, because it is, wait for it,-- CLASSIFIED!

This sorry excuse has been used for generations to cover up truly inept and useless waste of taxpayers dollars on so called stewardship. The so-called research funded by NNSA would never stand up to the kind of peer review that is expected of science these days. It is only reviewed by corrupt panels dependent on NNSA $ for paying off their mortgages.

Anonymous said...

Calculate using the same codes that predicted ignition on the NIF, no doubt.

Anonymous said...

If it comes to making a profit, then the letter will be signed, no matter what. Of course this is why anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence realizes why privatizing our NW program was a crazy and dangerous idea.

In the decline of every empire there is moment where a decision is made that means there is no going back and the end is just a matter of time. Has the moment passed the US?

Anonymous said...

This sorry excuse has been used for generations to cover up truly inept and useless waste of taxpayers dollars on so called stewardship.

December 5, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Since you don't actually know any facts on this subject, you can make any claims you want. Ho Hum.

Anonymous said...

Calculate using the same codes that predicted ignition on the NIF, no doubt.

December 5, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Yeah, ICF ignition codes are the same as nuclear weapon performance codes. You are so knowledgeable!!

Anonymous said...

Good response to the LA Times article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-koehler/beyond-mad-reviving-nucle_b_6272094.html

Anonymous said...

"Hint: the AD for weapons for the time when Quintana was hauling classified files into a known meth den is now the Lab Director. While the meth scandal may have derailed the LANL design, it did nothing to slow down Charlie's rise to the top. " (6:42 am)


Wow! I guess that can be added to Charlie's long and growing list of major management FUs. Amazing.

Anonymous said...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-koehler/beyond-mad-reviving-nucle_b_6272094.html

Kinda condescending and devoid of real analysis or insight. But he's got a point about the rats. I mean, does a rat infestation mean that we need to build more nukes, or does it just mean the people controlling the expenses there need to spend a few grand on professional exterminators?

Anonymous said...

New nukes?! Yeah right. The only possibility is that we contract Russia to build them for us.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant idea, 9:43 am. Seeing as we already depend on the sanctioned Russians to (a) take our astronauts and logistics to the International Space Station and (b) buy their rocket boosters to put our classified military payloads into space.... the next logical step is to pay them for our nuclear weapon needs!

Problem solved! And we know the Russian nukes work, because they've been investing heavily in new missiles and other nuclear technology.

Anonymous said...

And we know the Russian nukes work, because they've been investing heavily in new missiles and other nuclear technology.

December 7, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Right. Their nukes work because they are investing in delivery systems? They haven't tested in over 20 years either. NK will be outpacing the US and Russia very soon.

Blog Archive