My Blog Posts

• The Case Against Increasing Plutonium Pit Production Capacity
  02/09/2012 10:02:53 AM EST
  Though we won’t know for sure until the fiscal year 2013 budget is released on February 13, reports suggest that the Obama administration has decided to delay construction of Los Alamos National Laboratory’s multi-billion dollar facility, the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). I recently wrote a piece on this topic titled, "The Case Against Increasing Plutonium Pit Production Capacity." The key findings are: 1. While the CMRR-NF will be used for a range of activities, it can also be used to support an increase plutonium pit production capacity. 2. The Obama administration Nuclear Posture Review endorsed the Bush administration’s concept of a responsive infrastructure, restating that new nuclear warhead production facilities will serve as a “hedge against technical or geopolitical surprise.” 3. By the time of its scheduled completion date of 2024, most nuclear weapons in the arsenal will have already been refurbished or in the middle of a refurbishment. 4. Increased capacity would inhibit opportunities for increasing security by altering perceptions about the U.S. commitment to reductions or disarmament. 5.  Given the potential risks involved, the current budget environment presents an opportunity for Congress to reevaluate whether it is necessary to move ahead with this facility. You can read the entire piece here.
• Are Ambitious Life Extension Programs on Hold?
  01/26/2012 04:18:33 PM EST
  I recently wrote an analysis on the future of the proposed life extension program for the B61 gravity bomb. It argues, "Congress provided the full $233 million NNSA requested for the B61 life extension program in FY 2012. However, when you read the fine print, it is less clear how Congress will respond to future funding requests. According to the Conference Report for H.R. 2055, the legislation which funds the government for FY 2012, including NNSA, Congress withheld $134 million until “NNSA submits to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the outcome of the Phase 6.2/2A design definition and cost study. The results of this study, as well as other stringent reporting requirements mandated by Congress, are likely to present insurmountable hurdles to NNSA’s plan to move forward with the most ambitious option for the B61 LEP. The current budget environment is no doubt also a key driver of the need to reevalutate the objectives of the program, but a rethinking of the goals of the planned refurbishment would be necessary even in better economic times." You can read the entire piece here.
  
• HASC Republicans Playing Fast and Loose with Nuclear Weapons Budgets
  10/13/2011 04:54:10 PM EST
  by Nickolas Roth and Ulrika Grufman This week, Massachusetts Representative Edward Markey held a press conference announcing that more than sixty Members of Congress had co-signed his letter to the super committee urging them to substantially cut nuclear weapons funding in order to balance the budget. In reply, Ohio Representative Michael Turner, Chairman of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, offered some of his usual rhetoric that cutting funding meant the U.S. was unilaterally disarming. His statement was quickly followed by the release of a letter sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee signed by Republican members of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee asking that the Senate fully fund the President’s request for nuclear weapons. To justify the request for more money, the letter makes a number of questionable arguments regarding the nuclear weapons budgeting process over the past year.
• Produce to Reduce: The Hedge Gamble
  09/21/2011 10:52:47 AM EST
  In case you missed part 4 of the UCS/FAS analysis of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Stockpile Stewardship Program for fiscal year 2012, we looked at the relationship between planned nuclear weapons complex and stockpile modernization and stockpile reductions. We find that “the use of new warhead production facilities to produce additional hedge warheads undermines the administration’s message that the new facilities are needed to allow a reduction of the stockpile. It suggests that even with a new “responsive” warhead production complex, the future stockpile will still include a sizeable hedge of reserve warheads.” You can read the entire post on the FAS blog or on the UCS blog.
• UCS/FAS Analysis Part 3: Hydrodynamic Testing
  09/19/2011 12:59:46 PM EST
  Part three of the UCS/FAS analysis of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Stockpile Stewardship Program for fiscal year 2012, titled "Hydrodynamic Tests: Not to Scale," sheds light on scaled experiments, which are a relatively unknown form of subcritical nuclear testing.   We find that “the push for scaled experiments is coming from NNSA officials, not the nuclear weapons laboratories. The labs have resisted because they are overburdened by the increasingly ambitious Life Extension Programs. NNSA officials claim that scaled experiments could yield ten times more data points and save money because one large scaled experiment could replace twenty of the smaller hydrodynamic experiments conducted today. Lab scientists maintain that scaled experiments would require major new equipment investments that are not currently planned.” As you might recall, the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee recently addressed the issue of scaled experiments in its committee report. You can read my summary of its findings here. You can read all of post #3 on the FAS blog or on the UCS blog.