Anonymous said...
    Parney's opening and closing for the Senate Subcommittee on Strategic Forces last week;
    OPENING REMARKS AND SUMMARY
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the National Nuclear Security Administration Management of its National Security Laboratories. I am Parney Albright, Director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).
    LLNL is one of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) nuclear design laboratories responsible for helping sustain the safety, security, and effectiveness of our nation’s strategic deterrent. In addition to our stockpile stewardship efforts, we also leverage our capabilities to develop innovative solutions to major 21st-century challenges in nuclear security, defense and international security, and energy and environmental security. I thank the committee for your continuing support for the important work we do.
    This is a challenging period for the federal government, with many priorities that require attention at a time of budget austerity. This is also the case for the nation’s Stockpile Stewardship Program, including the activities at Livermore. We are very excited about recent and prospective major accomplishments, which I will highlight, but we are also very concerned about impediments to current programs and long-term success in stockpile stewardship. In particular, I stress four points:
    - Without sustained support for nuclear weapons science, stockpile stewardship will eventually fail.
    - We remain optimistic about the prospect of long-term success of ―science-based‖ stockpile stewardship provided that support is sustained. The skills deriving from a solid science base will enable stockpile stewards to maintain a safe, secure, and effective deterrent and deliver on challenging life-extension programs.
    - Recognition of and support for the NNSA laboratories serving as ―national security laboratories‖ will better help the United States meet a broad set of 21st-century security challenges. These broader activities complement our nuclear weapons responsibilities, adding depth, breadth, and strength to the laboratories’ capabilities.
    - The NNSA laboratories would perform their vital national security mission much more effectively if they were managed as trusted partners of the federal government and governed in a more streamlined/cost-effective way, consistent with the original intent of the federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC) construct.
    CLOSING REMARKS
    My overall message is a ―good news‖ story with a note of caution. With continuing investments in HPC and with NIF coming on-line as a unique experimental facility to gather necessary input and validation data for nuclear weapons science simulation codes, science-based stockpile stewardship is on the path to success. However, vigilance and strong partnerships are required to sustain program support so that there will be skilled and motivated stockpile stewards as long as the nation relies on nuclear deterrence.
    All of us at LLNL look forward to serving as a trusted partner in the nation’s national security enterprise and are proud to provide innovative science and technology to meet a broad set of national security needs. We thank you for your continuing support
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...
 
Comments
Putting more funds into the plan, as LLNL is doing might make sense -- but putting less doesn't look good. What gives??