LANL Data Mushrooms into Cloud

Cities of Gold Hotel and Casino, Pojoaque, NM/ June 7, 2011, 5:30 PM-7:30 PM:

The RACER environmental database team, and the New Mexico Community Foundation (NMCF), held a public meeting to describe the results of a recent audit of RACER data, and to introduce the planned use of cloud computing technology as an enhancement to the RACER database.

The audit was designed and conducted by the Risk Assessment Corporation (RAC), the original creator of RACER, under contract to  Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Agency (DOE/NNSA). DOE/NNSA is currently the sole support of RACER and also funds ~10% of ongoing NMCF operations. A RAC employee presented the audit findings to an assembly of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and New Mexico Environment Department  (NMED) personnel, along with a few members of the general public. Altogether, approximately 30 people were in attendance. The purpose of RACER is ostensibly to make LANL and NMED environmental data accessible to the general public.

The audit uncovered numerous discrepancies contained in RACER data, when compared to data supplied by LANL to the auditors. Because of these discrepancies, the RAC presenter judged the current interface through which LANL has been supplying data to RACER to be a "failure".

However, in the next presentation a LANL staff member described reasons for these discrepancies, and the strategy which soon would be employed to correct them.

A second LANL staff member then elaborated on the planned use of cloud computing technology to enhance the RACER database.

During the course of this last presentation, and as a result of the question and answer session which followed, it became clear that the DOE intends to replace its LANL environmental database, now being held redundantly on servers at LANL and by RACER, with data residing only in the Cloud; i.e., on public access servers owned by the Locus Corporation, and provided under a new DOE/NNSA contract. For future users of this data, Locus will also supply display software surpassing in versatility what is now being offered by RACER.

That the DOE may wish to cut costs by contracting out the management of its environmental data seems unexceptional. Indeed, the ability of LANL staff to make use of its environmental data may well be facilitated by a more efficient data management scheme. Whether or not this new arrangement will facilitate or inhibit use of LANL environmental data by the general public is another question.

It appears to me that, at present, there are very few users of this data among the general public; viz., few or almost none, as judged by tallies reported by the RACER site-meter. Will the invocation of a more versatile data display tool encourage more use of LANL environmental data by the general public? Judging by my own experience with RACER, and with display software generally, I'm dubious of such a theory.

Unless, that is, one has in mind the use of environmental data as a new form of entertainment (perhaps a 3D environmental movie hosted by a sexy captain DOE-America?) ... and a distraction for the general public from its worries about the real nuclear weapons R&D going on at LANL, with all of its likely accompanying environmental contamination.

CMRR-NF SEIS Hearings in New Mexico

Public hearings were recently held by DOE/NNSA, in which comments were solicited from the general public on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) of April, 2011, regarding proposed construction of the ~$6 billion facility for plutonium R&D at LANL. These hearings were a part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, mandated by the U. S. Congress, and were held on the evenings of May 23-26, 2011 in Albuquerque, Los Alamos, Española, and Santa Fe, NM.

The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) discussed is being designed to replace a similar, but said to be outmoded building (CMR) constructed in the 1950's. If constructed as planned, the CMRR-NF will enable DOE/NNSA/LANL's continuation of the performance of nuclear weapons R&D at Los Alamos for approximately the next 50 years; in particular, R&D activities related to plutonium chemistry and metallurgy. These activities would have applications to stockpile stewardship, as presently understood; i.e., to the production of new plutonium triggers to replace weapons that have been damaged or destroyed during active surveillance.

However, the CMRR-NF is also a keystone of DOE/NNSA's plans for the continuation of the U. S. nuclear weapons program for the next 50 years. An essential part of these plans is the centralization of all  plutonium related activities at LANL, with the collection and storage of weapons grade plutonium in underground vaults at CMRR-NF. The CMRR-NF could also support the large-scale production of plutonium pits, or triggers, of new and untested designs if DOE/NNSA should ever convince a future U. S. Congress to revive the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program.

It is interesting to recall that plutonium pits, or triggers, are really only essential for the detonation of miniaturized thermonuclear weapons which, although small in dimension, can be designed to be weapons of almost limitless explosive power. A single very powerful thermonuclear weapon exploded over a major metropolis could result in the deaths of tens of millions of people. Thus, in our current political environment, in which the role of nuclear weapons in national policy is being down-played, and in which the contemplation of the use of any weapon of mass destruction is being stigmatized, thermonuclear weapons would seem to be of little value.

On the other hand, weapons of more limited power, such as atomic weapons, can be fashioned from uranium alone. The atomic weapon dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was just such a weapon, and its design was so simple that it did not even need to be tested before use. As is well known, however, the design of the plutonium based device dropped on Nagasaki did require testing before use, since its design was fraught with difficult engineering challenges. Thus, if there were to be any future for nuclear weapons, based say on their presumed deterrence value, then uranium weapons might easily suffice. In fact, initial concepts of the RRW were for just such a uranium based atomic weapon. However, in this, advocates for the "more is better" approach seem to have prevailed.

I attended the last 3 of the public meetings held to encourage public comment on construction of the proposed CMRR-NF. The emphasis in comments made by the public was different in each of these 3 meetings.

The Los Alamos meeting was rather small: 7 comments were pro-LANL and pro-construction; 3 comments were anti-LANL. The pro-LANL comments asserted the importance of the proposed construction to the local economy, as well as the importance of LANL to the local economy, generally. A few patriotic themes were also struck by the pro-LANL speakers.

The Española meeting was larger: there were 4 pro-LANL comments, 2 of which were by the same individuals who had spoken at the Los Alamos meeting; and there were 34 anti-LANL comments. The anti-LANL commenters mostly expressed outrage at the environmental contamination which they believed LANL operations were causing and which, they implied, activities at the CMRR-NF would worsen.

The Santa Fe meeting was equally large: there were 2 pro-LANL comments, but by the same 2 individuals who had spoken at the previous meetings; again there were 34 anti-LANL comments, of which only 4 were by people who had spoken in Española. The anti-LANL sentiments were now largely centered on moral concerns; i.e., the immorality of continuing with the U. S. nuclear weapons enterprise.

Thus, it appears that the local community is much more motivated to express opposition to the proposed CMRR-NF construction project than it is willing to express support for the smathering of new jobs that the project will produce; viz., over all, 65 citizens opposed the project while 8 expressed support.

The period for written public comment on construction of the CMRR-NF building extends to June 28, 2011, and citizens may email DOE/NNSA at NEPALASO@doeal.gov (Attn: Mr. John Tegtmeier, CMRR–NF SEIS Document Manager) expressing their views on this controversial matter. Copies of such communications should be forwarded to the offices of Rep. Ben Ray Lujan and to Senators Bingaman and Udall.

Comments on LANL Draft Community Relations Plan

The Draft LANL Community Relations Plan of May, 2011 (LA-UR-11-10608), the "Plan", was mandated by Sect. 1.12 of the LANL Hazardous waste Facility Permit, issued by NMED for the state of New Mexico on December 28, 2010 (RCRA Renewal Permit, the "Permit")

The Permit mandates that LANL create a Plan which will:

 1) Establish an open working relationship with the public

 2) Establish a productive government to government relationship with the tribes

 3) Keep the public informed about Permit actions of interest

 4) Minimize disputes and resolve differences with the public

 5) Provide a mechanism for dissemination of information to the public

 6) Provide a mechanism for public input to the Permittees

The Plan asserts compliance with Permit mandates because:

 1) LANL hazardous activities have become more transparent and responsive to the public

   a) As measured by the annual survey of attitudes of local community leaders toward LANL, and the evolution  toward more positive attitudes over the last several years

   b) Mechanisms facilitating exchange of information and opinions with the public have been set up; e.g.,  an email address at envoutreach@lanl.gov; information repositories, electronic at www.lanl.gov and printed  media at LANL's Oppenheimer Center; a schedule of formal meetings and briefings; tours of LANL facilities; the NNMCAB.

 2) Government to government relations with the tribes are being promoted

 3) Professional facilitators are being employed to conduct public meetings

........................................................................

However, I believe that the Plan is inadequate for the following reasons:

It seems that all of the cited Plan elements have been ongoing for many years. Thus, the Plan is a collection of previously existing programs; no programs were created specifically to comply with the mandates of the Permit. As to the individual Plan elements:

 1a) The annual surveys of the attitudes of local community leaders toward LANL is insufficient to convincingly demonstrate approval, or disapproval, by the local community of LANL behavior. A better means of determining the opinions of local community members would be to survey these opinions directly. Moreover, the annual survey of local community leaders has been ongoing for several years and could hardly be counted as a part of a new plan to improve relations with the general public.

 1b) All of the mechanisms and entities mentioned here by LANL have been in existence for many years and cannot be considered a part of a new community relations plan.

 2) Government to government relations with the tribes have long been promoted by the DOE and are also nothing new.

 3) It has long been DOE policy to employ professional facilitators to keep order at public meetings. Therefore, this element is also not new.

Furthermore, the enumerated Plan elements do not even include all of the existing LANL community relations programs. For example:

 A.) The Plan makes no mention of the RACER electronic database. RACER is an online record of measurements made by LANL and NMED of the concentrations of a large number of contaminants of groundwater and soil all around the Pajarito Plateau over a period of many decades. RACER was created with DOE money, and the accumulation of its important environmental data is an ongoing process.

 B.) The Plan makes no mention of the New Mexico Community Foundation and its commitment to providing a regular forum for the exchange of information and opinions between LANL personnel and members of the general public. The NMCF has recently been funded by the DOE to accomplish this important task and it's hard to understand why LANL's Plan does not claim part ownership of this group. After all, LANL includes the NNMCAB in its Plan. Yet the NNMCAB is wholly a DOE creation.

 C.) The Plan makes no mention of the NEWNET air quality data available, online and in real time, to the general public.

 D.) The Plan makes no mention of the Bradbury Museum, an important part of LANL ongoing community relations. Perhaps this is because the Bradbury invites contributions from the general public, for which it provides exhibit space. Some of these contributions are very critical of LANL operations, past and present.

 E.) The Plan makes no mention of the many other materials available through the existing LANL Community Programs Office.

Worse, the Plan's authors have made no attempt to accommodate the demands of local citizens, presented during the public RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit hearings:

 A.) There is no mention of the extensive information on environmental contamination compiled by the LAHDRA project, which was funded by the DOE, and is available online in the LAHDRA final report.

 B.) No attempt has been made to create a repository of historical records describing the involvement of DOE/LANL in the lives of local citizens and in the life of the surrounding communities. It was suggested that such a repository of historical records should be established at Northern New Mexico College.

American Physical Society and Nuclear Arms Control

American Physical Society April 2011 meeting (Saturday, April 30, 2011 - Tuesday, May 3, 2011) Hyatt Regency Hotel, Garden Grove, CA

This meeting was mostly about cosmology, astrophysics, and particle physics; however, there were two short sessions devoted to matters of nuclear arms control.

The first of these sessions was entitled "Nuclear Weapons" and was chaired by Patricia M. Lewis of the Monterrey Institute of International Studies. The first speaker,  Rebecca Johnson of the Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy; was not actually present but addressed the attendees through Skype. RJ is a staunch advocate for nuclear disarmament, and presented some well thought out positions in support of her cause. The next speaker was Jay Davis, the first director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA, formerly the National Security Agency), and a knowledgeable apologist for the NW industry. JD seems to advocate for the notion that, as the number of nukes in the US arsenal is reduced, the amount of work required to ensure deterrence increases. He further suggests that, if the number of nukes in the US nuclear arsenal were to approach zero, then the work required to ensure deterrence would approach infinity. (Zeno's paradox). During the question and answer period I asked JD if he could say why it might not be possible to "stigmatize" NWs in the same way that chemical and biological weapons had been stigmatized (as had been pointed out by RJ, during her talk), thus short-circuiting the tortuous build-down process that he implied might require an infinite amount of effort to complete. He answered that chemical and biological weapons had never been of much strategic significance, in contrast to NWs.

The 2^nd session was entitled "The Status of Arms Control". The 1st speaker was S. Drell of SLAC who spoke about "What happens to deterrence as nuclear weapons decrease toward zero." He made several points which I recorded as: 1) It was understood at the height of the Cold War that nukes could not be defended against (Star Wars schemes did not work or were unreliable, he said), so that Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) became the only viable policy. 2) Rejecting MAD, the task of US nuclear weapons policy is presently to prevent nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. 3) Between 1940 and 1990, the number of nuclear weapons capable states had increased at the rate of one every 5 years. 4) Since 1986, US policy became increasingly one of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. 5) He wonders, however, if nuclear deterrence can be effective without nuclear weapons. In answer to my question about the importance of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), he said that he believed it to be very important, and if the US failed to ratify this treaty, then the rest of the world would not trust us. At no time during his talk did he address the apparently self-serving quality of current US efforts to "rid the world of nuclear weapons".

The next talk was by Marvin Adams of Texas A&M (formerly of LLNL, LANL and the JASONs) entitled "Confidence in nuclear weapons as numbers decrease and time since testing increases". MA is a buffed looking, carefully spoken, and studiedly reasonable guy. He waxed on, in a seemingly well-informed way, about the travails faced by the poor nuclear weapons labs as they struggle to perform their critical mission (whatever that is) in the face of the threat posed by reductions in the numbers of nukes in the US nuclear arsenal.

The last talk in this session was by Edward Levine a staff member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations entitled "Securing support from a skeptical Senate for further strategic arms controls". EL is a well-spoken Democratic Senate staffer who talked about the difficulty of getting reluctant Republican senators to agree to any controls on US nuclear weapons. During the question and answer period I asked him why he thought that the 3 present weapons Labs directors had publicly supported the Obama Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, while 6-8 former weapons Labs directors had condemned it. He said that he believed that this was because the 3 present directors were all members of the new generation of Lab weapons physicists who were comfortable with Stockpile Stewardship whereas the former directors were members of the older generation, unfamiliar with SS. I said that I thought it more likely that the present directors, working as they did for an executive branch agency, felt themselves to be personally vulnerable and were circumspect in the expression of their opinions. He responded that he thought that this was a cynical point-of-view.

China Competes

Yesterday the New York Times editorialized about the threat to US security being posed by China's recent improvements to the design of one of their intermediate range ballistic missiles. The NYT implied that this improved missile might pose a threat to US carrier battle groups prowling the waters of the western Pacific Ocean.

        “Beijing’s drive to extend its military and territorial reach is making America’s close allies in the region  nervous and raising legitimate questions about American diplomacy and future military  procurement. The commander of America’s Pacific forces recently revealed that China could soon deploy a ballistic missile capable of threatening American aircraft carriers in the region.”

The Times also expressed concern about China's long-term naval strategy in the region.

        “The Pentagon has a long history of hyping the Chinese threat to justify expensive weapons purchases, and sinking well-defended ships with ballistic missiles is notoriously hard. But what should rightly  concern American military planners is not so much the missile but the new Chinese naval strategy behind it.”

        “China seems increasingly intent on challenging United States naval supremacy in the Western Pacific. At the same time it is aggressively pressing its claims to disputed offshore islands in the East and South China Seas. Washington must respond, carefully but firmly.”

Therefore, said the Times editor, in order to better resist an apparent Chinese desire for more freedom-of-action in the western Pacific (its own backyard).

        “The Pentagon must accelerate efforts to make American naval forces in Asia less vulnerable to Chinese missile threats by giving them the means to project their deterrent power from farther offshore.”

But, let's be reasonable, said the editor.

        “The Obama administration must also redouble its diplomatic efforts to persuade Beijing that great power cooperation is far better than a costly and dangerous military rivalry. Dealing with a rising China could be Washington’s biggest challenge in the decades ahead. The United States has no interest in heightening tensions. A rapidly developing China has better uses for its new wealth than weapons. But when China pushes, as it is doing now, America needs to push back with a creative mix of diplomatic suppleness and military steadfastness.” 

Hmm! Didn't the Times editor opine that: "A rapidly developing China has better uses for its new wealth than weapons." But, what about the US? Doesn't it have better uses for its wealth than weapons? Well, apparently not!

According to SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute): During 2009, the US led the world in weapons expenditures, having paid out $663 billion in national wealth, present as well as future ( or 4.3% of GDP), at a annual rate of $2141 per capita. Somewhat amazingly, this American investment amounted to 43% of the total military expenditure for the entire world. The next largest military expenditure was indeed that of China, with $99 billion (2.0% of GDP), but at an annual rate of only $75 per capita. As a fraction of the total world military expenditure, the Chinese contribution was just 7%.

The Times editor suggested that China's "new" wealth might find a better use than military expenditures. But, in terms of a wealth of cultural experience, who's the real parvenu here? Modern Chinese culture extends back to the Xia dynasty of ~2000 BC, while American culture extends back to ... the Declaration of Independence of 1776? the first settlement at Jamestown in 1607? the founding of St. Augustine in 1565? Perhaps a better measure of the rate of military expenditure might be dollars spent annually, per year of accumulated cultural experience?

Anyway, what's the problem here? Is China just moving its shoulders around in order to gain more breathing space, while the US insists on continuing in its role of unrivaled hegemonic superpower? Or is it that China aspires to be a superpower, but at the expense of an all too well-meaning and altruistic America?

For more on this theme see: "The Big (Military) Taboo"

By Nicholas D. Kristof

NYT December 25, 2010 

For a related lesson in real-politik see: "How to Stay Friends With China"

By Zbigniew Brzezinski

NYT January 2, 2011  

America Vencedor! Obama Vencedor!

Wednesday, 12-22-10, 3:00 PM EST/  The United States Senate ratified the New Start Treaty (strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty with the Russians) by a vote of 71 to 26; 13 Senate Republicans and all 58 Democrats voted in the affirmative. For those who missed today’s CSPAN-2 broadcast of the Senate hearing, here is my personal summary:

Initially, two amendments to the Treaty, offered by Republicans, were passed by unanimous consent of the Senate; these were in the nature of signing statements, and should not require that the Treaty be renegotiated with the Russians. (Yesterday, several other amendments to the text of the Treaty had been offered by the Republicans; but, these were all voted down by margins of 2 to 1.) 

 The accepted amendments were:

 1) The Kyl amendment, which stipulates that the President should expedite funding for upgrades to the nuclear weapons laboratories. In particular, funding for the plutonium R&D facility (CMRR building) at LANL, and the enriched uranium R&D facility at ORNL should be expedited.

 2) The Corker-McCain-Lieberman amendment, which stipulates that the Preamble to the Treaty is non-binding on the United States. In particular, the US will continue with development of its missile defense systems and such development will not be seen by the US as an acceptable reason for any future Russian withdrawal from the Treaty.

At this point, it was made clear by the majority leader Sen. Harry Reid, and the head of the Foreign Relations Committee Sen. John Kerry, that no further amendments would be allowed. Nevertheless, senators continued to expatiate regarding the Treaty.

 Sen. Byron Dorgan (Dem. of South Dakota) pointed out that the federal budget for nuclear weapons R&D had increased by 10% a year, over the past two years, and that there was no reason to suspect that there had been any foot-dragging in this area by the Obama Administration. Dorgan also noted that architectural designs for the CMRR building at LANL were currently only 45% complete and, therefore, there was no reason to expedite funding for construction of that facility.

 Sen. Jeff Sessions (Rep. of Alabama) spoke for 20 minutes about his fervent denunciation of the Treaty. Sessions said that "the Treaty would make the US less safe", and should be rejected by the Senate. He complained that:

 1) The Treaty was a step on the road toward "President Obama's goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons", which was a "leftist goal" and a "dangerous fantasy".

 2) The notion that the Treaty will make Russia "more cooperative" in its relations with the US was false. He stated that Russia had shown itself to be uninterested in cooperation with the US since it had blocked United Nations Security Council attempts to condemn North Korea and, in 2008, had attacked its neighbor Georgia.

 3) The Obama Administration had "unilaterally given away US missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic", thus, showing itself to be "insufficiently committed to missile defense".

 4) The US Senate should state clearly that the "goal of zero nuclear weapons is undesirable and even impossible".

 5) "The goal of zero nuclear weapons is a cockamamy and dangerous idea".

 6) "The idea of a world without nuclear weapons is ominous and chilling".

 7) In the Nuclear Posture Review of this past spring, Pres. Obama made clear that "his goal is a world without nuclear weapons". However, ex-Sec. of Defense Schlesinger has said that he believes that "a world without nuclear weapons is a utopian idea".

 8) "The maintenance of a large US arsenal of nuclear weapons is the best way to encourage the non-proliferation" of nuclear weapons. "If the US continues to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons in its arsenal, this will lead other nations, which don't now have nuclear weapons, to develop their own".

 9) "The Obama Administration has made it clear that the New Start Treaty is a step on the road toward its goal of a world without nuclear weapons. But, to me this is not a dream, it's a nightmare!"

 10) "By reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the US is relinquishing its leadership role in the world."

 Thus, the world according to a rosy-cheeked and smiling Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

 Sen. Kay Hutchinson (Rep. of Texas) then spent 10 minutes talking about why she would vote to reject the Treaty:

 1) The original Kyl amendment, and the original Corker amendment, which would have required renegotiation of the Treaty, and were rejected yesterday by the Senate, should have been approved.

 2) An amendment by Sen. Inhofe aimed at stengthening the Treaty's verification regimen, which would have required Treaty renegotiation and which was also rejected, should have been approved.

 3) The threat of attack on the US by nuclear tipped missiles from Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea is very worrisome, and should lead to the rejection of the Treaty, as written.

 Sen. Dorgan spent 10 minutes rebutting the remarks of Sen. Sessions. He noted that the Treaty is not a unilateral statement of intent by the US to reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, but a schedule of reductions that had been negotiated with Russia. He mocked the idea that a world with fewer nuclear weapons is a more dangerous world. Rather, he said, that "the Treaty is a step on the road toward a less dangerous world".

 Sen. Mark Kirk (Rep. of Illinois) took 10 minutes to talk about his beliefs that:

 1) "While the present leadership of Russia is rational, and does not threaten the US by attack with nuclear weapons, the leadership of Iran and North Korea is irrational."

 2) "It is the sacred mission of the democracies to maintain readiness to confront attacks with nuclear weapons by irrational states."

 3) "The New Start Treaty limits our ability to develop missile defense and is, therefore, irrational".

 4) "The Obama Administration has cancelled plans for missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, and has downgraded missile defense systems in Alaska".

 5) "The Preamble to the Treaty was written to curry favor with the Russians".

 6) "The Treaty's verification regimen is inadequate".

 7) "Russia has fueled the Bushehr reactor in Iran, and will also supply an air-defense system to Iran".

 8) "Mutual Assured Destruction is a strategy from the past which is inappropriate as a means of dealing with modern threats".

 Sen. Kyl (Rep. of Arizona) spent 20 minutes talking about his reasons for advising that the Treaty be rejected, and complaining about the way in which Senate business was being conducted:

 1) "The majority leader, has packed the Senate agenda in order to jam Republicans in the lame-duck session."

 2) "Not enough time has been allowed for debate on the Treaty". "Republicans were not allowed to change language in the Treaty, thus, preventing them from exercising their advise and consent role."

 3) "If the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is brought before the Senate next year, then that Treaty will be very closely examined."

 4) "The most important issue confronting the US is that of non-proliferation, and not the sizes of the arsenals of the US and Russia."

 5) "Another very important issue is how the US is going to modernize its arsenal of nuclear weapons."

 6) "It is also very important that "the US continue to modernize each leg of the triad of its strategic nuclear weapon delivery system."

 Sen. Kerry (Dem. of Massachusetts), head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, devoted 10 minutes to summarizing the Treaty debate. He pointed out that:

 1) "Disagreements over Treaty details should not dissuade senators from voting to ratify, since the Treaty is of utmost importance for national security, and for helping to move the world out from the dark shadow of the nuclear nightmare."

 2) J. Robert Oppenheimer said that, in a world with nuclear weapons, "people must unite or perish".

 3) Pope John Paul II said, while on a pilgrmage to Hiroshima, that "man, who wages war, can also make peace".

 4) Sen. Daniel Webster of Massachusetts said, 150 years ago that, with respect to slavery, "he spoke not just as a man from Massachusetts, but as an American".

 Sen. Lugar (Rep. of Indiana), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also spent 5 minutes summing up issues touched on during the Treaty debate:

 1) "The original Start Treaty, negotiated under Pres. Reagan and signed by Pres. George H. W. Bush, was very successful in that it drastically reduced the numbers of nuclear weapons deployed on each side."

 2) "The importance of such treaties is also in helping to build trust between the two sides".

 3) "The Treaty would help to reduce future expenditures for nuclear weapons, a matter of especial importance now, as we are faced with such difficult long-term financial problems".

US Vice President, and President of the US Senate, Joe Biden, took the presiding officer's chair and called for a vote on the Treaty; ~30 minutes was consumed by the voting process, following which Biden declared that the Treaty had been ratified by a vote of 71 to 26.

As it turned out, members of the Kyl faction, made up loosely of Sens. Kyl, Cornyn, Inhofe, McCain, etc, voted unanimously to reject the Treaty, in spite of the Obama Administrations having offered them many incentives, in the form of more funding for upgrades to the US nuclear weapons complex. Nevertheless, 13 Republicans were counted among those who voted to ratify the Treaty. Those were: Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, George V. Voinovich of Ohio, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Bob Bennett of Utah, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and Mike Johanns of Nebraska.  

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. national poll released Tuesday, 73 % of respondents said that the Senate should ratify the Treaty, while 24 % said that it should be rejected. That is, Americans support ratification of the Treaty by a 3 to 1 majority.

As contentious as the ratification process has been, the Treaty itself mandates only a modest reduction in the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons, and strategic delivery vehicles, by the United States and Russia; viz., from the present 2200 deployed weapons to 1550, and to a total of 700 delivery vehicles. A verification regimen is also stipulated by the Treaty.

However, many thousands of  strategic nuclear weapons have been placed in storage by both sides, and large numbers of tactical nuclear weapons are also still deployed and remain in storage. Although none of these very dangerous assets have been considered by the Treaty, they  may become the subject of some future negotiation. One imagines the world awaiting this future negotiation with bated breath.

Meanwhile, ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty continues to be problematic for President Obama. It does seem unlikely that Senate Republicans, soon to be reinforced by 6 new members, will allow that treaty to go forward during the remaining two years of this Administration. After all, this is a treaty which is much opposed by the nuclear weapons industry!

New Start Treaty Blocked by Republicans

In recent weeks a controversy has erupted between supporters of the New Start Treaty and those opposed to the Treaty. The New Start Treaty is a negotiated agreement between the United States and Russia to continue with reductions in the size of the arsenals of nuclear weapons held by each side. It would renew a treaty (Start Treaty) which was proposed by Pres. Ronald Reagan in 1982, signed by Pres. George H. W. Bush in 1991, and entered into force in 1994.

The New Start Treaty has already been signed by Pres. Obama, but still must be ratified by the US Senate.

In the US, those who are advocating a "trust but verify" attitude towards the Russian nuclear weapons program, are being opposed by those who would promote a strategy of American "strength above all".

Advocates of the Treaty point to the importance of reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons being held in Russian and American arsenals, both as a means of limiting the danger of accidental nuclear war and as an important part of ongoing efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear weapon proliferation. They also point out that the Treaty continues with an essential regimen of mutual inspections of nuclear weapons sites.

Those who are opposed to the Treaty believe that it is generally disadvantageous for the United States to enter into arms control agreements with Russia, since Russia is by far the weaker power, both militarily and economically.

On the one hand is a group of Democrats led by Pres. Barack Obama. This group is supported by US Defense Sec. Gates and top brass in the Pentagon, by NATO member states and commanders, and by Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin.

The opposition group is made up of Republican senators led by Jon Kyl of Arizona, and apparently by North Korean leaders and by Sigfried Hecker, a past Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Pres. Obama appears to believe that the New Start Treaty is an essential step along the road toward eventual world-wide nuclear disarmament. In this regard, he would say that it is not only necessary to continue to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons held in the arsenals of the US and Russia, and this in a matched and verifiable way, but also to continue to disincentivize attempts by presently non-nuclear states to develop their own nuclear weapons.

Sen. Kyl appears to feel that it is essential for the US to maintain a vast military superiority over Russia, and for this reason it is necessary to force from the US Congress guarantees of increased spending for the US nuclear weapons program. He also seems to be generally suspicious of any attempt to enter into arms control agreements with Russia.

Meanwhile, militaristic and paranoid North Korean leaders continue to grow their nuclear weapons program and to boast to the world about their accomplishments in this area. Recently, they invited American nuclear weapons expert Sig. Hecker to inspect their new uranium enrichment plant, which they proudly displayed to him. Having been duly impressed, Hecker returned to the US and launched into a media tour in which he presented himself as being astounded at the scale of the North Korean achievement. However, Hecker is a perennial advocate of more money for the American nuclear weapons program and the recent signatory of a letter criticizing American attempts to limit the size of developments to that program.