Skip to main content

White House Says Door Not Closed to Nuclear Warhead Replacement

Image
By scooby
Anonymously contributed:

White House Says Door Not Closed to Nuclear Warhead Replacement
Thursday, April 22, 2010

By Martin Matishak
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- A key White House official yesterday reaffirmed that the Obama administration had not closed the door on replacement of nuclear warheads, but that it was more likely to use less-controversial means for maintaining the U.S. strategic arsenal (see GSN, April 15).

"If necessary, if we have to do replacement in order to maintain [U.S. nuclear] forces, then the president has that option available to him," Gary Samore, senior White House coordinator for WMD counterterrorism and arms control, said yesterday during an event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"I don't think it will be, frankly," he added. "From what I understand ... refurbishment and reuse will be perfectly fine for the foreseeable future. But if I'm wrong, and replacement becomes necessary, the president has the option to do that."

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/
nw_20100422_3638.php

Comments

Anonymous said…
Perhaps this fellow from the White House should send a note to Dianne Feinstein. Remember, at the NIF grand opening she did say the RRW is still dead.

I think the White House is just telling little white lies, just to appease some congressman and senators who have part of the NWC in their districts. That statement does exclude California. Even Tauscher said RRW is dead and she was the best support of the lab from the California contingent.
4/24/2010 10:38 AM
Anonymous said…
I think Obama is saying it depends on the meaning of "if". :)
4/24/2010 10:44 AM
Anonymous said…
sounds to me from the article it is still dead.
4/26/2010 1:32 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

Rumor corner

By scooby
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.
92 comments
Read more