Skip to main content

Nuclear Security Official Hints at Leaner, Less Costly Weapons Complex

Nuclear Security Official Hints at Leaner, Less Costly Weapons Complex
By Walter Pincus
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A11


The best status report on the U.S. nuclear weapons program and its future was delivered last Tuesday at a session of the House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development, where the head of the program declared, "We must stop pouring money into an old, Cold War complex that is too big and too expensive."
The speaker was Thomas P. D'Agostino, who heads the National Nuclear Security Administration, which runs the nuclear weapons complex and is a carryover from the Bush administration. As he had done before, D'Agostino pressed Congress to fund "urgent" change, while acknowledging that President Obama will favor a reduction in the nuclear weapons stockpile.
For example, he noted that over the past two years, the projection of the number of new plutonium triggers that will be needed to keep the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile reliable and secure has steadily dropped from 450 a year to 20.

The Rest of the Story

Comments

Anonymous said…
Bush's administration started this mess and, incredibly, his architect is still with us.
Anonymous said…
And now the coup de grâce....

Ironic - the word verification for this had a substring "gestapo"
Anonymous said…
Leaner, less costly == more layoffs.
Anonymous said…
Really isn't it time to stop funding weapons designers and modelers to continue the mediocre irrelevant work they have been doing for the past 17 years since testing ended? Of course there is expertise that we need to retain, but it could be maintained for about 10% of what is currently being spent. Who are we kidding? Be honest, how much of what goes on in WCI is required to be sure we have a working weapon when we need one? And don't forget how much we could trim by getting rid of excessive unnecessary managers.
Anonymous said…
9:02, if you read the threads on the W76 and Fogbank you'd realize the expertise to maintain is long gone.

The current logic in gov circles is that the leanest, cheapest complex is no complex at all. And that mission is pretty well accomplished de facto, it just takes some paperwork to make it all formal.
Anonymous said…
March 29, 2009 9:00 PM

That isn't the current logic. At least I have never read that. Your making stuff up again.
Anonymous said…
I think the accusation of making things up is out of line. No one here is all-knowing nor should reasonable speculation be banned.

Just looking at this story today....
President Obama gives speech at Stasbourg

"This is our generation, this is our time and I am confident we can meet any challenges as long as we are together," Obama said.

He drew huge applause when he said he is setting a dramatic goal of "a world without nuclear weapons."


Sure sounds to me that the other poster might have a reasonable point.

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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...

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.