Skip to main content

Tri-Lab Directors' Statement on the Nuclear Posture Review

Anonymous said...



Joint Statement from Los Alamos Director Michael Anastasio, Lawrence Livermore Director George Miller, and Sandia Director Tom Hunter

Los Alamos, New Mexico, April 9, 2010—The directors of the three Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Laboratories—Dr. George Miller from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Dr. Michael Anastasio from Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Dr. Tom Hunter from Sandia National Laboratories—today issued the following statement on the Nuclear Posture Review:

“A key responsibility of the three Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Laboratories—Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories—is to provide technical underpinnings that ensure the safety, security, and effectiveness of the United States’ nuclear deterrent. The recently released Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) provides the Administration’s policy framework and path forward for ensuring that ‘the nation's nuclear weapons remain safe, secure and effective.’

“We believe that the approach outlined in the NPR, which excludes further nuclear testing and includes the consideration of the full range of life extension options (refurbishment of existing warheads, reuse of nuclear components from different warheads and replacement of nuclear components based on previously tested designs), provides the necessary technical flexibility to manage the nuclear stockpile into the future with an acceptable level of risk. We are reassured that a key component of the NPR is the recognition of the importance of supporting ‘a modern physical infrastructure —comprised of the national security laboratories and a complex of supporting facilities—and a highly capable workforce with the specialized skills needed to sustain the nuclear deterrent.’”

News Release

April 10, 2010 8:54 AM

Comments

Anonymous said…
They forgot to mention the most important part for the three NNSA lab "for-profit" LLCs -- the need to immediately double the salaries of all three lab Directors ASAP!

Perhaps that was hidden in the addendum.
Anonymous said…
The Lab Directors only publish and state what is politically acceptable and correct. God forbid they would ever "man up" a requirement for a nuclear test. Fact is, while we have a handful of designers left, there's only one problem, there is no capability left to field it. All the people in J-Division at LANL are either dead, in old folks homes, or forced into crappy facility jobs by LANS to meet PBIs. No one had the wisdom to maintain that capability, but no worry, we'll just perform a three-dimensional calculation, put on our 3-D glasses, and show pretty movies to our DoD customers and senators. Everybody is fat, dumb, and happy.
Anonymous said…
Ouch, 3:50, the truth really hurts!

Yes, everybody -- including the Congress, the media, the NNSA and the LANS/LLNS "management" teams -- are all fat, dumb and happy. The frequent issuance of glowing press releases by NNSA and the for-profit LLCs serve to cover up the dry rot.

Since no one will probably ever bother to get to the truth of the ugly situation regarding our weapon lab capabilities, it's a moot point... at least for now.

The saddest part of this continuing decline? Well, I suspect that Pakistan, India, North Korea or even Iran could likely pull off a more credible nuke test on short notice than today's US-of-A.

Popular posts from this blog

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...

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.

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.