NNSA's decline

Anonymous said:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke at the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace today (10/28/2008) — Topic: The Future Of U.S. Nuclear Weapons. I caught most of it on C-SPAN and have tried to paraphrase it below. It also looks like you’ll be able to listen to it yourself in the future via this link:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/


B-1 Bombers and four Trident Submarines no longer have a nuclear mission

In 1992 we unilaterally stopped nuclear testing and developed a Stockpile Stewardship Program

The U.S. has completed all reductions for START

The U.S. is planning to reach a 2/3 reduction of our 2000 nuclear deployed force numbers by 2010 as part of Moscow Treaty, nearly two years early

The U.S. will have 75% fewer nuclear weapons than at the end of the Cold War

A new defense triad developed:
Strike capability consisting of existing capabilities
Defense capability including a limited ballistic missile defense
New infrastructure to support

Rising and resurgent powers, rouge nations -- we need to keep a deterrence

Other countries lacking funding are putting more reliance on their nuclear force

Russia and China are not considered adversaries but we cannot ignore their developments

Proliferation: the fewer nuclear armed states, the better

We simply cannot predict the future, our track record has not been that great

The genie cannot be put back in the bottle

If we can accept that nuclear weapons are still relevant, must continue responsibility

Recent issues of Air Force handling of nuclear weapons and related material

1990’s streamlining folded some nuclear related components into regular supply chain

Another element to credibility: Safety, Security, and Reliability of the weapons

Our weapons are currently safe, secure, and reliable

Long term prognosis -- Bleak

No new design since the 1980’s, no new devices have been built since the 90’s

A serious brain drain of veteran nuclear scientists and technicians

NNSA has lost a quarter of work force since 90’s

Half of nuclear lab scientists are over fifty years old

By some estimates, three-quarters of experienced workforce will be at retirement age in several years

Weapons were designed on the assumption of a limited shelf life then replacement

Sensitive parts do not last forever and developed with narrow technical margins

No test to certify these weapons since 1992, test data becoming incomplete

Currently the U.S. is the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal or has the capability to produce a new nuclear warhead

To be blunt, there is no way to maintain a credible deterrence while reducing the number of weapons in stockpile without testing or pursuing a modernization program

Funding for a Reliable Replacement Warhead program has only been supported at a conceptual phase and now the funding for that has been cut

The program did not deal with new capabilities; it dealt with the future credibility of our nuclear deterrent

The U.S. must transform from an aging cold war nuclear weapons complex to a smaller, less costly, modern enterprise that can meet our nations nuclear security needs

A new paradigm is required for the post cold-war world era

Need ability to deter a range of potential adversaries from taking a variety of actions

Also must face nation states passing weapons into the hands of terrorists

Need to design redundant systems to make attack appear pointless

As long as human nature is what it is…


- - - - - - -
I retired early when the management of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab transitioned from the University Of California to LLNS. I saw the funding issues, I saw the moral issues, and I endured the management issues. I smile though as I reminisce to when I contributed my limited pieces to the puzzle.

p.s., My thanks to those who maintain the "LLNL, The True Story" web site.