Assessing and Realigning the National Labs

August 14, 2014 | Edited by Lauren Mladenka

Energy overhaul - “Last year, Congress created the ‘Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories’” to address the size, mission and alignment of the existing Department of Energy laboratories, writes Ryan Alexander in US News. “A huge part of the DOE budget (almost $12 billion) goes to what is called the National Nuclear Security Administration, which has widely divergent responsibilities, including maintaining the nuclear stockpile, nonproliferation programs, and building the reactors that power the nuclear Navy. And the laboratories direct a lot of their, well, energy at research related to nuclear weapons. This is a throwback to the ‘Manhattan Project’ pursued in the 1940s as the U.S. raced to develop the first nuclear bombs.”

--The commission examines key congressional concerns including long-term efficiencies and a DOE mission that has changed over time. “Closures and consolidations of one or more of the labs is a difficult thing to accomplish,” Alexander says. “This was underscored by a 2003 attempt by the Bush administration to close Idaho National Laboratory (founded in 1949) and move that work to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (founded in 1943). This consolidation never happened, largely for political reasons.”

--“A system cobbled together from a start more than 100 years ago (at a time before the first moving assembly line roared to life and when the life expectancy of an American man was slightly more than 48 years) can certainly do with a top to bottom review. Taxpayers are demanding greater efficiencies in government management and spending. The commissioners shouldn’t squander this opportunity.” Read the full piece here. http://bit.ly/VjyHlX

Tweet - @nukes_of_hazard: The @RUSI_org report by @HughMagroo and @MChalmers_RUSI on relocating Trident in event of Scottish independence ow.ly/AjYMo

Standing alone - “Everyday morality falls mute before the horrors of war,” writes Norihiro Kato in The New York Times. “And yet I can’t help feeling that, from the perspective of the victims, the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are different: Something distinguishes those attacks from the Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking, the bombing of Dresden or the Holocaust.”

--“The difference lies not in the atrocities themselves, but in the attitude the world has taken toward them. The international community has reached a consensus regarding all those other horrors: They violated international law; they never should have occurred in the first place; they must never be permitted to happen again. The few individuals who defend the Holocaust, for instance, are not only condemned but reviled.”

--“The situation is completely different with respect to the atomic bombings. Even if most people around the world privately believe the indiscriminate killing of civilians with nuclear weapons is wrong, there is no shared public consensus to this effect… the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffer a double injury. Unlike the victims of, say, the Holocaust, who can at least take strength in knowing that the world stands with them, the victims of the atomic bombings have stood alone for decades.” Full piece here. http://nyti.ms/1rvtHVD

Hanging up her spurs - Today is Lauren Mladenka’s last day as editor of Early Warning. After almost a year and a couple hundred editions, she’s moving on to bigger and better things. We’ll have a new team of editors beginning next month. In the meantime, wish her well by tweeting your thanks @earlyWarningPF.

No change - “The Obama administration is not likely to make major changes to the US Defense Department's ballistic missile defense programs and will focus efforts over the next two years on implementing current plans,” writes Marcus Weisgerber in Defense News. “But fiscal pressure will ‘continue to challenge implementation’ of these policies, Elaine Bunn, deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, said.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/1uuaDMg

Racing forward - “It looks like the Pentagon might be taking June 22’s successful intercept test with a little too much exuberance,” writes Laura Grego in All Things Nuclear. Barely a month after the Ground Based Midcourse (GMD) missile defense system test, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff announced that Raytheon would resume production of new CE-II kill vehicles by the end of July in preparation for building 14 more interceptors.

--“This is quite exuberant for a system that has been dogged by so much failure,” Grego says. “While June’s successful test may show that the MDA is improving its approach, one successful test out of three does not indicate a reliable interceptor that we want more of. It’s simply not enough information.”

--“It’s time to step back, rationally assess what the most pressing nuclear threats are and prioritize how to deal with them. This needs to happen while taking a sober look at how difficult and expensive the potential solutions are, and at the financial and opportunity costs. For missile defense, we just keep closing our eyes and pulling out the checkbook.” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/Vn6AC2

Tweet - @BulletinAtomic: The complicity of scientists in the smuggling of radioactive materials has been a long-standing concern ow.ly/AhPCc

Considering the bomb - “Nuclear tensions are again ratcheting up on the Korean Peninsula, with Pyongyang threatening a fourth nuclear weapons test in what one U.S. analyst described as its new ‘allergic reaction’ to routine military exercises by South Korea and United States scheduled to start on August 18. A fourth nuclear test could further influence the debate in Seoul and Washington over whether South Korea should consider the “nuclear option.” Such a decision – if South Korea were to seriously consider it – could upturn the 60-year South Korean-U.S. alliance, global nonproliferation efforts, not to mention dozens of international obligations that tie one of Asia’s wealthiest nations to the global economy.”

--Shifting public opinion in South Korea and U.S. congressional calls to study redeployment of tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula have pushed one former senior South Korean foreign policy advisor, Dr. Moon Chung-in, to weigh in on the development of a South Korean bomb. “Far from reinforcing South Korea’s already overwhelming conventional military capabilities – including in almost every dimension where North Korea has developed offsetting ‘asymmetric’ capabilities – South Korean nuclear weapons would undermine deterrence based on conventional forces, and even reduce South Korea’s ability to use its conventional forces in response to a North Korean attack,” Moon says. Read the full piece by Philip Iglauer for The Diplomat here. http://bit.ly/1BfDPZj

Quick-hits:

--“Air Force Global Strike Command adding manpower” in The Shreveport Times. http://bit.ly/Xinwvu

--“In Iraq leadership crisis, US and Iran playing on same side” by Howard LaFranchi in The Christian Science Monitor. http://bit.ly/1utVZok