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.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Inside Obama Administration, a Tug of War Over Nuclear Warheads
From the piece... ----- Gates' behind-the-scenes attempt in June to resuscitate the idea [RRW], experts said, was a first real test of whether Obama as president would maintain his opposition to "rushing to produce a new generation of warheads," as he said during last year's campaign.
Even with Biden serving as a backstop against an RRW revival, Obama's national security team remains split over the matter and it is not certain which side will prevail.
"It's not clear where we're going to go [on the warhead issue]," one senior Defense Department official told GSN. "We need an effective stockpile [but] we haven't got a consensus within the administration on what that means. And so I can't say that, forever, this 'replacement' idea is verboten."
Insiders said the high-level discussion illustrated just the tip of the iceberg, reflecting a broader power struggle coalescing within the Obama administration's nuclear arms policy circles. The question: How to balance the president's ambitious vision for diminishing the global allure of nuclear weapons with domestic political pressure to maintain a robust U.S. arsenal?
To some extent, the evolving tug of war can be seen in Obama's own public words. On April 5, the president delivered a major address in Prague in which he laid out two facets of his nuclear weapons policy (see GSN, April 6).
"The United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons," Obama said. "To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same."
He added, though: "Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies."
One would think from these comments that the demise of the nuclear weapons complex started six months ago. It didn't of course. No one in government is going to alter the course set for the complex. It is going to get downsized (has been for four years)whether you like it or not.I suggest that rather than try and pin blame on the administration we all start looking to the future and find a way to evolve. If you can't do that then it is time for you to leave.
Evolve into what? LLNL is a specialist in weapons research, like it or not. There is ZERO flexibility in the institution, that was obvious before and LLNS has proven it now. Talking about changing the mission is like dinosaurs debating about evolving. It ain't gonna happen.
This has been going on for some time and it's not related to any administration. It's just the pace of decay has picked up in the last few years. The Lab was doomed the day the Soviet Union dissolved.
8 comments:
Joe Biden meddling again. Big surprise.
At least we now know Gates was more on the side of the weapons labs than even NNSA is.
The future funding outlook for the weapon labs does not look good given the recent political changes in Washington.
Congress and the Obama Whitehouse seem ready to dither on this national security issue while both LLNL and LANL slowly die.
Obama's mission is to disarm America. Read the Obama Biden plan on his website. You'll find it in small text buried deep in the document.
From the piece...
-----
Gates' behind-the-scenes attempt in June to resuscitate the idea [RRW], experts said, was a first real test of whether Obama as president would maintain his opposition to "rushing to produce a new generation of warheads," as he said during last year's campaign.
Even with Biden serving as a backstop against an RRW revival, Obama's national security team remains split over the matter and it is not certain which side will prevail.
"It's not clear where we're going to go [on the warhead issue]," one senior Defense Department official told GSN. "We need an effective stockpile [but] we haven't got a consensus within the administration on what that means. And so I can't say that, forever, this 'replacement' idea is verboten."
Insiders said the high-level discussion illustrated just the tip of the iceberg, reflecting a broader power struggle coalescing within the Obama administration's nuclear arms policy circles. The question: How to balance the president's ambitious vision for diminishing the global allure of nuclear weapons with domestic political pressure to maintain a robust U.S. arsenal?
To some extent, the evolving tug of war can be seen in Obama's own public words. On April 5, the president delivered a major address in Prague in which he laid out two facets of his nuclear weapons policy (see GSN, April 6).
"The United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons," Obama said. "To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same."
He added, though: "Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies."
One would think from these comments that the demise of the nuclear weapons complex started six months ago. It didn't of course. No one in government is going to alter the course set for the complex. It is going to get downsized (has been for four years)whether you like it or not.I suggest that rather than try and pin blame on the administration we all start looking to the future and find a way to evolve. If you can't do that then it is time for you to leave.
Evolve into what? LLNL is a specialist in weapons research, like it or not. There is ZERO flexibility in the institution, that was obvious before and LLNS has proven it now. Talking about changing the mission is like dinosaurs debating about evolving. It ain't gonna happen.
This has been going on for some time and it's not related to any administration. It's just the pace of decay has picked up in the last few years. The Lab was doomed the day the Soviet Union dissolved.
August 21, 2009 3:45 PM
I don't think anybody suggested "changing mission", rather changing the way you achieve "the mission". Please reread my post.
There is no mission to achieve anymore! Get that through your heads people.
Post a Comment