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.

Nuke Enthusiasts Fight New Start Treaty

The newspapers this morning are filled with reports and discussions of matters relating to the New Start Treaty:

The New York Times is running a William J Broad story about the Treaty, and its relation to controversy over upgrading of the US nuclear deterrent, with corresponding costly nuke building programs at the DOE/NNSA's nuke labs, especially LANL and ORNL, but also the Kansas City Plant. In order to entice a few Republican Treaty ratification votes, Pres. Obama is offering more money for nuke program upgrades, but the Republican point man on this issue, Sen. Jon Kyl, still says no.

The NYT runs a Maureen Dowd spoof of Pres. Obama's New Start Treaty political problems.

The NYT also runs a story about Sig Hecker's trip to N Korea, and his "discovery" there of a new facility for uranium enrichment.

The Los Angeles Times contains a more comprehensive story about Hecker's trip to N Korea, pointing out that he traveled with Jack Pritchard, a former US ambassador to S Korea, and a current publicist for S Korean interests. According to the LAT, both Hecker and Pritchard will shortly give a talk about their trip to the Korean Economic Institute, Pritchard's organization. They had both also just finished briefing the Institute for Science and International Security, a group focused on world-wide nuclear proliferation matters.

Hecker, a past director of LANL and a strong proponent of continuing the American nuclear weapons program, was a signatory to a May 2010 letter by 10 former nuke lab directors criticizing the April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review. The former directors asserted that the NPR restricts the creative freedom of scientists and engineers who work at the nuke labs, thus denying the nation the full benefit of its nuclear weapons designers' expertise, and placing the nation at unnecessary risk of a possible future nuclear attack.

One wonders about the timing of the release of information about Hecker's latest visit to N Korea, and the effect that this information might have on the New Start Treaty ratification process.

Fate of New Start Treaty?

Messieurs John Bolton and John Yoo, two former Bush administration stalwarts, reprised their fundamentalist approach to the formulation of US foreign and domestic policy, in a 11-10-10 Op Ed piece for the New York Times.

It is now clear, they said, that "Voters want government brought closer to the vision the framers outlined in the Constitution, and the first test could be the fate of the flawed New Start arms control treaty, which was signed by President Obama and President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia last spring but awaits ratification. The Senate should heed the will of the voters and either reject the treaty or amend it so that it doesn’t weaken our national defense."

They asserted further that: "New Start’s faults are legion. The low limits it would place on nuclear warheads ignore the enormous disparities between American and Russian global responsibilities and the importance of America’s 'nuclear umbrella' in maintaining international security."

They then opined: "To prevent New Start from gravely impairing America’s nuclear capacity, the Senate must .... demand changes to the treaty itself. .... Congress should pass a new law financing the testing and development of new warhead designs before approving New Start."

In support, they offered up a historical precedent: "All this is within the Senate’s powers. When it approved the Jay Treaty in the 1790s, which resolved outstanding disputes with Britain, the Senate consented only on condition that President George Washington delete a specific provision on trade. Washington and Britain agreed to the amendment, and the treaty entered into force."

Hence, we see here what may be the opening sally, from a cabal of nuclear stone-agers, in the about to be renewed struggle to ratify the New Start Treaty (nuclear arms control treaty between the US and Russia) in the US Senate.

A key player in this struggle may be Sen. Jon Kyl of Ariz., whose opposition to the treaty is well-known, although for months he has held out the possibility of a compromise. In particular, Kyl has appeared to pin his eventual "support for the treaty to a boost in funding to modernize the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons", according to the Associated Press yesterday.

Perhaps the Administration hopes to turn Kyl's opposition into eventual support by offering up additional sweeteners; viz., in the form of guarantees of increased funding for the nuclear weapons program, or even by agreeing to proceed with the development of new nuclear weapons designs.

Of course, the Administration's Nuclear Posture Review of this past spring was explicit in its refusal to permit work on any new warhead designs. And, the current heads of the three nuclear weapons laboratories wrote letters in support of the NPR, albeit not without some grumbling.

For example, as reported by David Kramer in Physics Today, issue of July 24, 2010:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) director Michael Anastasio told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on 15 July that lab managers have "both the authority and the responsibility" to replace aging weapons components "on a case-by-case basis" if that is judged to be the best approach. While admitting he would prefer having no restrictions put on the labs’ options for extending warhead lifetimes, Anastasio said language in the administration’s April Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) provides "an adequate level of flexibility to carry out our mission.”

Similarly, while expressing reservations, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory director George Miller pronounced the NPR restriction "workable," and said it "would permit his weapons designers to bring forward all the options for consideration."
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
However, a group of ten former heads of the three nuke labs were moved to denounce important parts of the NPR. In the same Physics Today story we find that:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
In a May letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, the 10 former directors said the NPR "imposes unnecessary constraints on our engineers and scientists when it states that 'the United States will give strong preference to options for refurbishment or reuse’ and that the replacement of nuclear components ‘would be undertaken only if critical Stockpile Management Program goals could not otherwise be met, and if specifically authorized by the President and approved by Congress.'”

The former lab directors warned that the "higher bar" set by the NPR for replacement of components will "stifle the creative and imaginative thinking that typifies the excellent
history of progress and development at the national laboratories, and indeed will inhibit the NPR’s goal of honing the specialized skills needed to sustain the current deterrent."
They added that the NPR restrictions will add to the risk that the country has taken on by not testing its nuclear weapons.

In their letter, the former directors also fretted that science, engineering, non-nuclear testing, and other laboratory programs will be starved to pay for cost overruns that have become inevitable during the construction of the facilities needed to clean up the Department of Energy’s cold war weapons production complex. And they warned that the administration’s budget projections for the construction of a multibillion-dollar plutonium research and pit production facility at LANL, and for a new uranium processing facility at Oak Ridge, TN, are inadequate.

“While we are encouraged by your commitments, we are deeply concerned that most of the significant investments promised are not available until the out-years of the plan," the directors wrote. "We are concerned, having received commitments of support before, that Congress and the President will once again promise a great deal today, and then quickly forget about the nuclear weapons enterprise until something breaks.”

Signing the letter were former LANL directors Harold Agnew, Siegfried Hecker, John Browne, Pete Nanos, Robert Kuckuck, and Donald Kerr; former LLNL directors John Nuckolls, John Foster, and Michael May; and former Sandia National Laboratory director C. Paul Robinson.

But Roy Schwitters, a physics professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told senators he disagreed with the former directors' statements, arguing that there are enough technical and scientific challenges within the scope of the NPR to provide opportunities for staffs to grow professionally. Schwitters chaired a sub-panel of JASON, the self-perpetuating scientific advisory committee, that last year reviewed the NNSA’s technical plan for extending the life of the stockpile. That review found no evidence that an accumulation of changes incurred from aging or from earlier life extension programs has increased the risk that deployed warheads won’t work as they’re supposed to. It also advised that the lifetimes of the weapons could be extended for decades with no loss in confidence. But Schwitters noted how one life extension program currently underway, the W-76 warhead for Trident missiles, actually employs a combination of refurbishment, reuse, and replacement.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
So who's right and who's wrong here? Well, the "experts" seem to be divided along lines, at least partly, of self-interest. By this I mean that:

Out of self-interest, current nuke lab directors would be expected to accede, generally, to the administration's point-of-view. Thus, theirs is an unconvincing endorsement of the administration's position.

On the other hand, although former directors can more freely express themselves, they speak from an experience steeped in the culture of nuclear weapons design, and the interests of nuclear weapons designers. We will return to this point in an moment.

What about the opinions of Prof. Schwitters? Well, as a member of the JASON's, his views may be conditioned by connections both to the nuclear weapons industry and to the military and civilian political establishments, but in unknown proportions. Nevertheless, it would seem to be in the interests of a JASON for his judgment to appear to be unbiased and straightforward. So, after all, his view may be the most credible.

Finally, coming back to the ten former nuke lab directors, it is clear enough to me that their complaints were based upon parochial concerns.

For example, they warned that the NPR will "stifle the creative and imaginative thinking that typifies the excellent history of progress and development at the national laboratories, and indeed will inhibit the NPR’s goal of honing the specialized skills needed to sustain the current deterrent." But, the creative and imaginative thinking to which they referred could really only not be stifled if the goals of the nuclear weapons program themselves were not stifled. Such was the situation in the fifties and early sixties, at the height of the cold war, but no longer!

Moreover, they said that "the NPR restrictions will add to the risk that the country has taken on by not testing its nuclear weapons." Admittedly, such a risk would be difficult to quantify, or even estimate, but they've made no attempt whatsoever to do so. It seems to me that they were just fear-mongering.

Furthermore, as reported in Physics Today "the former directors also fretted that science, engineering, non-nuclear testing, and other laboratory programs will be starved to pay for cost overruns that have become inevitable during the construction of the facilities needed to clean up the Department of Energy’s cold war weapons production complex." But, the cleanup of toxic waste, accumulated from the nuclear weapons program over a period of more than fifty years, and now costing ~$6 billion annually, is necessary for the safety and well-being of all Americans. It does not seem to be a fitting subject for public lamentation by former nuke lab directors.

"And they warned that the administration’s budget projections for the construction of a multibillion-dollar plutonium research and pit production facility at LANL, and for a new uranium processing facility at Oak Ridge, TN, are inadequate." Indeed! The next phase of construction of the CMRR at Los Alamos is projected to cost in excess of $4 billion, with a similar amount slated for Oak Ridge. But, whether or not any of this new construction will actually ever serve the national interest is still an open question. It is clear, however, that the continuation of this project would be in the pecuniary interest of those who are wedded to ongoing nuclear weapons operations at Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge, and to the nuclear weapons industry, generally.

-----

Today, 11-18-10, I'm returning to this blogpost to take note of the latest development. Two days ago Sen. Kyl made clear that he is unwilling to proceed farther down the path toward ratification of the New Start Treaty, until the next Congress is seated, in January.

After all, I suppose, why should the Kyl group accept half a package of Treaty concessions from Pres. Obama now, when they might expect to get a full package by waiting just two more months? And, if they can't get the concessions that they want, then they could instead vote the Treaty down. Scuttling the Treaty would be in accord with the Kyl group notion that arms-control treaties between Russia and the United States act to limit the actions of the US, by far the stronger of the two parties, unnecessarily. Such treaties, they would argue, cannot be in the interest of the US.

It seems that the President must resort to the bully pulpit to explain clearly, and forcefully, to the entire nation, the importance of immediately ratifying the New Start Treaty.

Nukes Very Lucrative

A recent article in the Los Alamos Monitor underlined the fact that New Mexico is currently number five among the 50 states in terms of per capita annual income recieved from the federal government. For every $1 in federal taxes paid by New Mexicans, Washington returns $2 to New Mexico.

Federal dollars come from the sources of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as well as from the DOE's nuclear weapons activities in NM: viz., the approximately $4 billion spent in fiscal 2010, for work at LANL, SNL, and the WIPP site.

In and around Los Alamos County, local economies are particularly dependent on federal largess. However, in recent years, this largess has been skewing toward the most highly paid Lab managers.

In this context, consider this brief history:

In 2005, after the DOE had decided to end its sixty year-long UC/LANL connection, it issued a Request for Proposal to an eager group of would-be new contractors. Among these, M. Anastasio led a team of entrepreneurs backed by the well-heeled Bechtel in creating a successful bid for the new LANL contract. No neophyte he, for several years prior to that time Anastasio had been the Director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).

Although partly selected by DOE for its promise to bring a new efficient management style to LANL, LANS-LLC is still a for-profit management group. It is not surprising then, that in the first year of the new contract at LANL (2006-2007), the new LANL Director took home a salary plus bonus of $1.25 million. This was approximately four times what the previous LANL Director had earned in his last year under the old UC contract.

In fiscal year 2009, LANS-LLC declared a profit from its management of LANL operations of $72 million. Legally, the Limited Liability Copmpany (LLC) is obliged to distribute, each year, all of its profits to its owner-managers.

(As an aside, in a somewhat memorable early 2006 presentation to staff of LANL's X-Division, the then X-Div Head, Paul Hommert, proclaimed that the new contract was being written in such a way as to ensure an increase in the number of managers and, therefore, an increase in the amount of money that many LANL employees could expect to be taking home, in the very near future. Immediately after the start of the new contract, Hommert, who was not a member of the new management team, was moved to a temporary post at UC Headquarters in San Francisco. Today, four years later, the perspicacious Hommert is the new President of Lockheed-Martin's Sandia Corporation, manager of Sandia National Laboratory (SNL), and the new Director of SNL. The previous President of the Sandia Corp. and SNL Director T. Hunter took home ~$1.75 million annually.)

In 2007, a similar process ensued at LLNL. The then LLNL Director, George Miller, led a team of manager entrepreneurs, again backed by Bechtel, calling themselves Lawrence Livermore National Security-LLC, who successfully bid for the new LLNL contract. On October 1, 2007, Miller became the new LLNL Director, under the new LLNS-LLC contract. Presumably, he too enjoyed a greatly increased pay package.

At about the same time, a team of nuclear weapons enthusiasts led by Stephen Younger, backed by Northrop-Grumman, and calling themselves National Security Technologies LLC, succeeded in winning a new contract from DOE for management of the Nevada Test Site (NTS). Younger had earlier been an Associate Laboratory Director at LANL, and was a past Director of the DOD's Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Thus, the nuclear weapons industry became much more remunerative for its managers, especially its senior managers. However, even some non-management personnel obtained substantial benefits. For example, when the contract changed at LANL from UC to LANS-LLC, in June 0f 2006, DOE gave all LANL employees the opportunity to retire as UC/LANL staff while continuing as new full-time LANS-LLC/LANL employees. Senior staff could draw full UC/LANL pensions, in some cases amounting to nearly 100% of their previous LANL salary, while continuing to collect their regular full-time LANS-LLC/LANL salaries. This was double-dipping with a vengeance.

CMRR Being Scrutinized

NNSA hosted two public "scoping" meetings during the week of October 18, 2010, in northern New Mexico, in order to gather input on what should be studied in a new environmental impact statement for the CMRR facility.

The first meeting was held on Tuesday, October 19, at the White Rock Town Hall, 139 Longview Drive, in Los Alamos, the second on Wednesday, October 20, at the Cities of Gold Hotel in Pojoaque. Both meetings began at 4 PM and ended at 7 PM.

LANL employees had the right to participate, but their comments were to be submitted as private citizens rather than on behalf of the Lab.

Written comments could be submitted, by November 1, to:

Mr. John Tegtmeier
CMRR–NF SEIS Document Manager
U.S. Department of Energy
National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Site Office
3747 West Jemez Road
TA–3 Building 1410
Los Alamos, New Mexico, 87544

KL attended the Wednesday meeting, in which the first hour and one-half was devoted to poster presentations by NNSA staff. In these presentations, citizens were informed of the latest complications in the Nuclear Facility (NF) portion of the CMRR project. The projected cost of the NF, for which plans have not yet been completed, has now risen to beyond $4 billion. The next hour was occupied by public comment.

Approximately 20 comments were presented by local citizens. Of these, only one was pro-Lab and pro-weapons development; that was the comment by Mike Loya, owner-operator of a local construction company. After the public comment period, a representative from Senator Udall's office thanked the NNSA for hosting the meeting, pointedly stating that the Senator wanted it to be known that NNSA had hosted the meeting entirely on its own initiative.

Two weeks prior to these meetings, however, on October 6, 2010, a hearing had been held in Los Alamos, at the Hilltop House, at which local citizens also discussed with NNSA officials matters of concern relating to the CMRR project. This was the second hearing on this topic to be held this year. Such biannual hearings have been going on since March, 2006, and are a part of a court facilitated agreement between local citizens groups and NNSA. At these hearings, NNSA is legally obliged to engage with local citizens.

Neither these two meetings, nor this hearing, were well-publicized.