DOCSLIB.ORG

Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Center for Unconventional Weapons Studies (CUWS) Outreach Journal Issue No. 1308 30 March 2018 // USAFCUWS Outreach Journal Issue 1308 // Feature Report “Nuclear Weapons: NNSA Should Clarify Long-Term Uranium Enrichment Mission Needs and Improve Technology Cost Estimates”. Published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office; February 2018 https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/690143.pdf The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized agency within the Department of Energy (DOE), is taking or plans to take four actions to extend inventories of low- enriched uranium (LEU) that is unobligated, or carries no promises or peaceful use to foreign trade partners until about 2038 to 2041. Two of the actions involve preserving supplies of LEU, and the other two involve diluting highly enriched uranium (HEU) with lower enriched forms of uranium to produce LEU. GAO reviewed these actions and found the actual costs and schedules for those taken to date generally align with estimates. NNSA and GAO have identified risks associated with two of these actions. One of these risks has been resolved; NNSA is taking steps to mitigate another, while others, such as uncertainty of future appropriations, are unresolved. NNSA’s preliminary plan for analyzing options to supply unobligated enriched uranium in the long term is inconsistent with DOE directives for the acquisition of capital assets, which state that the mission need statement should be a clear and concise description of the gap between current capabilities and the mission need. The scope of the mission need statement that NNSA has developed can be interpreted to meet two different mission needs: (1) a need for enriched uranium for multiple national security needs, including tritium, and (2) a specific need for enriched uranium to produce tritium. The DOE directives also state that mission need should be independent of and not defined by a particular solution. However, NNSA is showing preference toward a particular solution—building a new uranium enrichment capability—and the agency has not included other technology options for analysis. Without (1) revising the scope of the mission need statement to clarify the mission need it seeks to achieve and (2) adjusting the range of options it considers in the analysis of alternatives process, NNSA may not consider all options to satisfy its mission need. twitter.com/USAF_CUWS | cuws.au.af.mil // 2 // USAFCUWS Outreach Journal Issue 1308 // TABLE OF CONTENTS US NUCLEAR WEAPONS US Nuclear Stockpile Decreasing in Size, But Not Capability Perry Sees Plutonium Pit Work Staying at LANL ‘into the Future’ Energy Secretary Rick Perry Promises More Triggers for Nuclear Weapons Want to Demolish a Uranium Enrichment Facility? Ask a Pipe-crawling Robot First Navy to Congress: Columbia-class Submarine Program Still on Schedule with Little Margin for Error US COUNTER-WMD For Special Operations Forces, Fighting WMD Means Getting Deeper Into Enemies’ Leadership and Decision-Making Raytheon to Begin Modernizing Missile Defense US ARMS CONTROL How to Spot a Nuclear Bomb Program? Look for Ghostly Particles It’s No Cold War, but Relations with Russia Turn Volatile National Security Veterans Urge Trump Not to Scrap Iran Nuclear Deal ASIA/PACIFIC Japan’s Top Diplomat Taro Kono Mulls Attending Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Meeting Russia, China Eclipse US in Hypersonic Missiles, Prompting Fears EUROPE/RUSSIA Poland Officially Signs Deal to Buy Patriot from US Spying on U.S. Nuclear Submarine Base Factor in Closing of Russia’s Seattle Consulate Russia to Receive Entire Fleet of Upgraded Supersonic Nuclear-Capable Bombers by 2030 European Powers Press for Iran Sanctions to Buttress Nuclear Deal MIDDLE EAST Saudi-led Coalition Threatens Retaliation against Iran over Missiles Netanyahu: Israel Has Consistent Policy – Prevent Enemies from Obtaining Nuclear Weapons INDIA/PAKISTAN China Sell DANGEROUS Nuclear Weapons to Pakistan as Conflict with India ESCALATES US Slams Pakistani Firms with Sanctions for Nuclear Trade WW3: India Will 'DESTROY Pakistan and CRIPPLE China in Two-front Nuclear War' COMMENTARY A North Korean Gordian Knot: Undoing the Nuclear Link The Strategic Wisdom of Accommodating North Korea’s Nuclear Status On Iran and North Korea: Don’t Trust, and Verify, Verify, Verify Red Glare: The Origin and Implications of Russia’s ‘New’ Nuclear Weapons twitter.com/USAF_CUWS | cuws.au.af.mil // 3 // USAFCUWS Outreach Journal Issue 1308 // US NUCLEAR WEAPONS Defense News (Washington, D.C.) US Nuclear Stockpile Decreasing in Size, But Not Capability By Daniel Cebul March 27, 2018 WASHINGTON — The number of nuclear warheads kept in U.S. stockpiles decreased by nearly 200 since the end of the Obama administration, according to information released by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the Federation of American Scientists. This reduction brings the total number of warheads down to 3,822 as of September 2017. While this downsizing may seem to contradict the Trump administration’s position on U.S. nuclear posture, these reductions reflect “a longer trend of the Pentagon working to reduce excess numbers of warheads while upgrading the remaining weapons,” according to Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at FAS. In October 2017, President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis denied reports claiming the president was calling for an increase in the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. “Although defense hawks home and abroad will likely seize upon the reduction and argue that it undermines deterrence and reassurance, the reality is that it does not; the remaining arsenal is more than sufficient to meet the requirements for national security and international obligations,” Kristensen said. “On the contrary, it is a reminder that there still is considerable excess capacity in the current nuclear arsenal beyond what is needed.” The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review introduced two new low-yield nuclear-capable weapons to the U.S. arsenal, a sea-launched cruise missile and a nuclear-tipped D-5 Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile. Although the necessity and cost of these systems have been heavily questioned by critics, the capabilities have been defended by those inside the Pentagon as a necessary response to the return to great-power competition and a rapidly evolving 21st century threat environment. https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/03/27/us-nuclear-stockpile-decreasing-in-size- but-not-capability/ Return to top The Los Alamos Monitor Online (Los Alamos, N.M.) Perry Sees Plutonium Pit Work Staying at LANL ‘into the Future’ By Tris DeRoma March 23, 2018 Plutonium pit manufacturing and whether Los Alamos National Laboratory will remain the center of plutonium pit production was the highlight of Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., asked Secretary of Energy Rick Perry how confident he was that Los Alamos would be able to get 80 pits manufactured a year by 2030. twitter.com/USAF_CUWS | cuws.au.af.mil // 4 // USAFCUWS Outreach Journal Issue 1308 // The National Nuclear Security Administration is expected to release an analysis of alternatives study by May 11 that may favor moving the facility to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. “Now there’s talk of stopping and recalculating and looking at another approach. I just don’t think we have the time to do that,” Reed said. “Sen. Heinrich (D-N.M.) and I have discussed this at length many times. I’ve been to Los Alamos and I’ve visited P-4 (the plutonium manufacturing facility) out there, and it is populated with some very extraordinary men and women,” Perry said. “…Los Alamos is going to be the center for plutonium excellence for as long into the future as there is a future.” Perry further added that manufacturing at least 30 plutonium pits are guaranteed at the Los Alamos plutonium pit manufacturing facility. He also acknowledged however that the Department of Energy is going to take a hard look at the NNSA’s analysis of alternatives document before the May 11 deadline. “I think we know, to get the job done… I think 2026 is for the 30 pits per year to be done… the 31 through 80… I think it’s important for us to be able to send a clear message that we can get it done, that we can get it done in a timely basis in a way that the taxpayers know we are thoughtful about their concerns,” Perry said. Heinrich recited testimony given Tuesday before the committee by USAF Gen. John Hyten, where he emphasized the Department of Defense’s requirement of 80 pits per year by 2030, and having Los Alamos National Laboratory have the first 30 pits done by 2026. Heinrich echoed Reed’s statement in another criticism of the NNSA’s pending analysis of alternatives document, and how there is no time to reconsider another site. The document is allegedly considering the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site as another option for plutonium pit manufacturing. “Spending three years on what I have viewed as a flawed analysis of alternatives does not inspire confidence in regards to the timeline,” Heinrich said. “As you know, I had serious doubts about the NNSA’s analysis of alternatives study to meet the 80 pits per year, and in December, I sent you a letter citing specific concerns with the AOA, in that the modular approach at Los Alamos was not even considered.” Heinrich asked Perry if the modular approach would be fully considered in the analysis of alternatives study the NNSA is considering. Perry said that it would be. Heinrich also asked the secretary if he and Department of Energy Deputy Secretary Dan Brouillette would also do a detailed review of the modular design approach before the analysis of alternatives document came out May 11. Heinrich also wanted assurances that the best available cost estimates are used and that the recommended option will meet U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RAND Study of Reserve Xxii Realigning the Stars
    Realigning the Stars A Methodology for Reviewing Active Component General and Flag Officer Requirements RAND National Defense Research Institute C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2384 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0070-3 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover design by Eileen Delson La Russo; image by almagami/Getty Images. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Realigning the Stars Study Team Principal Investigator Lisa M. Harrington Structure and Organization Position-by-Position Position Pyramid Health Analysis Analysis Analysis Igor Mikolic-Torreira, Paul Mayberry, team lead Katharina Ley Best, team lead Sean Mann team lead Kimberly Jackson Joslyn Fleming Peter Schirmer Lisa Davis Alexander D.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Navy United States Atomic Energy Commission Historical Advisory Committee
    Nuclear Navy United States Atomic Energy Commission Historical Advisory Committee Chairman, Alfred D. Chandler, Jr. Harvard University John T. Conway Consolidated Edison Company Lauchlin M. Currie Carmel, California A. Hunter Dupree Brown University Ernest R. May Harvard University Robert P. Multhauf Smithsonian Institution Nuclear Navy 1946-1962 Richard G. Hewlett and Francis Duncan The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press Ltd., London Published 1974 Printed in the United States of America International Standard Book Number: 0-226-33219-5 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 74-5726 RICHARD G. HEWLETT is chief historian of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. He is coauthor, with Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., of The New World, 1939-1946 and, with Francis Duncan, of Atomic Shield, 1947-1952. FRANCIS DUNCAN is assistant historian of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. He is the coauthor of Atomic Shield. [1974] VA Contents Illustrations vii Foreword ix Preface xi 1 2 3 4 Control The The The of the Idea Question of Structure Sea and the Leadership of Responsi- 1 Challenge 52 bility 15 88 5 6 7 8 Emerging Prototypes Toward Nuclear Patterns of and a Nuclear Power Technical Submarines Fleet Beyond Management 153 194 the Navy 121 225 9 10 11 12 Propulsion Building Fleet The for the the Nuclear Operation Measure Fleet Fleet and of Accom- 258 297 Maintenance plishment 340 377 Appendix 1: Table of Organization Abbreviations 404 393 Notes 405 Appendix 2: Construction of the Sources 453 Nuclear Navy 399 Index 461 Appendix 3: Financial Data 402 V Illustrations Charts 8.
    [Show full text]
  • AIR and LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., CBS CORPORATION, and FOSTER WHEELER LLC, Petitioners, V
    No. 17-1104 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States AIR AND LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., CBS CORPORATION, AND FOSTER WHEELER LLC, Petitioners, v. ROBERTA G. DEVRIES, Administratrix of the Estate of John B. DeVries, Deceased, and Widow in her own right, Respondent. INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SHIRLEY MCAFEE, Executrix of the Estate of Kenneth McAfee, and Widow in her own right, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit JOINT APPENDIX (VOLUME I OF II) SHAY DVORETZKY RICHARD PHILLIPS MYERS Counsel of Record Counsel of Record JONES DAY PAUL, REICH & MYERS 51 Louisiana Ave NW 1608 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20001 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel.: (202) 879-3939 Tel.: (215) 735-9200 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner Counsel for Respondents CBS Corporation Roberta G. DeVries and Shirley McAffee (Additional counsel listed on inside cover) PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED JANUARY 31, 2018 CERTIORARI GRANTED MAY 14, 2018 CARTER G. PHILLIPS Counsel of Record SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Tel.: (202) 736-8270 [email protected] Counsel for Respondent General Electric Co. (continued from front cover) i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VOLUME I Docket Entries, In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), No. 16-2669 (3d Cir.) ............................... 1 Docket Entries, In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), No. 16-2602 (3d Cir.) ............................... 3 Docket Entries, In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), No. 15-2667 (3d Cir.) ............................... 5 Docket Entries, In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No.
    [Show full text]
  • Eternal Patrol
    AMERICAN SUBMARINER2019 • Second Quarter • $6.00 LEST WE FORGET 10 APRIL 1963 22 MAY 1968 || 1 Second Quarter 2019 THE 2019 USSVI SUBMARINE CALENDAR 2019 United States Submarine Calendar UNITED STATES SUBMARINES Submarine Squadrons of the Atlantic Fleet Plan your next reunion in USS Nautilus become an important (SSN 571), national the firsthistoric nuclear landmark vessel, anchoring was a true a trailblazerpopular East and Coast record-breaker, submarine museum.serving the None Navy of 25 the years Force’s under “firsts,” COMSUBLANT however, hasbefore had retiring more impact to USS NAUTILUS (SSN 571) than the truly pioneering initial message sent by this very boat to COMSUBLANT in January of 1955: “UNDERWAY ON NUCLEAR POWER.” NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS! It is our purpose to perpetuate the memory of our shipmates who gave their lives in the pursuit of their duties while serving their country. That their dedication, deeds and supreme sacrifi ce be a constant source of motivation toward greater accomplishments. Pledge loyalty and patriotism to the United States of America and its Constitution. COMSUBLANT Commander, Submarine Force Atlantic (COMSUBLANT) is the Submarine Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet type commander under the United States Fleet Forces Command. The principal responsibility is to operate, maintain, train, and equip submarines. SUBMARINE REUNION PACKAGE COMSUBLANT also has additional duties as commander of NATO’s Allied Submarine Command and also Commander, • Full run of USS Razorback Naval Submarine Forces. Have your next reunion at USS • Experienced sub vets on-hand Dedicated to all U.S. submariners who manned January 2019 Razorback (SS-394), a 90-percent (Five Submarines and 318 men lost) • Group photo our U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Part 2A: United States - Submarines
    Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Part 2A: United States - Submarines Peter Lobner July 2018 1 Foreword In 2015, I compiled the first edition of this resource document to support a presentation I made in August 2015 to The Lyncean Group of San Diego (www.lynceans.org) commemorating the 60th anniversary of the world’s first “underway on nuclear power” by USS Nautilus on 17 January 1955. That presentation to the Lyncean Group, “60 years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955 – 2015,” was my attempt to tell a complex story, starting from the early origins of the US Navy’s interest in marine nuclear propulsion in 1939, resetting the clock on 17 January 1955 with USS Nautilus’ historic first voyage, and then tracing the development and exploitation of marine nuclear power over the next 60 years in a remarkable variety of military and civilian vessels created by eight nations. In July 2018, I finished a complete update of the resource document and changed the title to, “Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018.” What you have here is Part 2A: United States - Submarines. The other parts are: Part 1: Introduction Part 2B: United States - Surface Ships Part 3A: Russia - Submarines Part 3B: Russia - Surface Ships & Non-propulsion Marine Nuclear Applications Part 4: Europe & Canada Part 5: China, India, Japan and Other Nations Part 6: Arctic Operations 2 Foreword This resource document was compiled from unclassified, open sources in the public domain. I acknowledge the great amount of work done by others who have published material in print or posted information on the internet pertaining to international marine nuclear propulsion programs, naval and civilian nuclear powered vessels, naval weapons systems, and other marine nuclear applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference
    JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE The managers on the part of the House and Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 5895) making appropriations for the energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes, submit the following joint statement to the House and Senate in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the accompanying conference report. This conference agreement includes the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2019, and the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019. The Senate amendment included the Senate versions of each of those bills (S. 2975, S. 3071, and S. 3024, respectively). Similarly, the House bill included the House versions of the legislation (H.R. 5895, H.R. 5894, and H.R. 5786, respectively). H.R. 5895 was passed by the House on June 8, 2018 and used as the vehicle for the Senate amendment, which passed the Senate on June 25, 2018. Section 1 of the conference agreement is the short title of the bill. Section 2 of the conference agreement displays a table of contents. Section 3 of the conference agreement states that, unless expressly provided otherwise, any reference to "this Act" contained in any division shall be treated as referring only to the provisions of that division. Section 4 provides a statement of appropriations.
    [Show full text]
  • DOE Transition 2016 Organization Overviews Book Three
    20 16 ORGANIZATION OVERVIEWS Book Three ORGANIZATION OVERVIEWS This book contains programs’ standard issue papers, which provide information on program organization, mission, staffing levels and responsibilities. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section One: Corporate Offices • Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) • Chief Financial Officer (CF) • Congressional & Intergovernmental Affairs (CI) • Energy Information Administration (EIA) • Energy Policy & Systems Analysis (EPSA) • Enterprise Assessments (EA) • General Counsel (GC) • Inspector General (IG) • Intelligence & Counterintelligence (IN) • International Affairs (IA) • Loan Program Office (LP) • Ombudsman • Power Marketing Administrations: o Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) o Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) o Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) o Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) • Public Affairs (PA) • Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) • Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (SB) Section Two: National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) • Defense Programs • Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation • Naval Reactors • Emergency Operations • Safety, Infrastructure and Operations • Defense Nuclear Security • Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation • Acquisition and Project Management • Information Management and Chief Information Officer Section Three: The Under Secretary for Science and Energy (S4) • Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) • Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) • Fossil Energy (FE) • Indian Energy Policy and Programs
    [Show full text]
  • Delivering Advanced Unmanned Autonomous Systems and Artificial Intelligence for Naval Superiority the Case for Establishing a U.S
    DELIVERING ADVANCED UNMANNED AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR NAVAL SUPERIORITY THE CASE FOR ESTABLISHING A U.S. NAVY AUTONOMY PROJECT OFFICE SHARIF H. CALFEE DELIVERING ADVANCED UNMANNED AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR NAVAL SUPERIORITY THE CASE FOR ESTABLISHING A U.S. NAVY AUTONOMY PROJECT OFFICE SHARIF H. CALFEE 2021 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2021 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Sharif Calfee is the U.S. Navy Fellow to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments as part of the Department of Defense Federal Executive Fellowship Program. Afloat, CAPT Calfee is currently serving as Commanding Officer, USS SHILOH (CG 67), homeported and forward deployed in Yokosuka, Japan. He also previously served as Commanding Officer, USS McCAMPBELL (DDG 85), also homeported in Yokosuka, Japan. He has previously served in six shipboard assign- ments across cruisers, destroyers and frigates. Ashore, he has served as the executive assistant to the Commander, Naval Surface Forces and as a Politico-Military Action Officer for counterter- rorism security assistance issues on The Joint Staff, J-5 Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate. He is the recipient of the Naval Postgraduate School’s (NPS) George Philips Academic Excellence Award, a graduate with distinction from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ending the Production of Highly Enriched Uranium for Naval Reactors
    CHUNYAN MA & FRANK VON HIPPEL Viewpoint Ending the Production of Highly Enriched Uranium for Naval Reactors CHUNYAN MA & FRANK VON HIPPEL1 Chunyan Ma is a Researcher in Weapon System Development and Arms Control Studies in China’s Defense Science and Technology Information Center. Work on this paper was done while she was a Fellow at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (January-June 2000) and a Visiting Researcher at Princeton University’s Center for Energy and Environmental Studies (July 2000-January 2001). Frank von Hippel is a Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. His articles focus broadly on the technical basis for new nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation initiatives, including: deep cuts in the nuclear arsenals, taking U.S. and Russian missiles off hair- trigger alert, banning the production of fissile materials for weapons, and assisting Russia in down-sizing its nuclear weapon production complex. n December 1993, the U.N. General Assembly However, the FMCT, as currently envisioned, has a adopted, without dissent, a resolution calling for the potential loophole because it would permit the contin- Inegotiation of a fissile material production cut-off ued production of weapon-usable fissile material for use treaty (FMCT). In this resolution, the FMCT was de- in military reactors. It would therefore leave open a po- scribed as a “non-discriminatory, multilateral and inter- tential diversion route whereby countries could produce national and effectively verifiable treaty banning the or acquire weapon-usable fissile material and remove it production of fissile material (highly enriched uranium from international safeguards under the pretext that it or plutonium) for nuclear weapons or other nuclear ex- was to be used in military reactor fuel.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2005 Volume 1
    DOE/ME-0032 Volume 1 Department of Energy FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request National Nuclear Security Administration Office of the Administrator Weapons Activities Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Naval Reactors Office of Management, Budget February 2004 and Evaluation/CFO Volume 1 DOE/ME-0032 Volume 1 Department of Energy FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request National Nuclear Security Administration Office of the Administrator Weapons Activities Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Naval Reactors Office of Management, Budget February 2004 Volume 1 and Evaluation/CFO Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Bleed bars Bleed bars Volume 1 Table of Contents Page Appropriation Account Summary..........................................................................................................3 NNSA Overview....................................................................................................................................7 Office of the Administrator..................................................................................................................23 Weapons Activities ..............................................................................................................................45 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.....................................................................................................401 Naval Reactors ...................................................................................................................................517 NNSA Site Funding Summary...........................................................................................................591
    [Show full text]
  • Ending the Production of Highly Enriched Uranium for Naval Reactors
    CHUNYAN MA & FRANK VON HIPPEL Viewpoint Ending the Production of Highly Enriched Uranium for Naval Reactors CHUNYAN MA & FRANK VON HIPPEL1 Chunyan Ma is a Researcher in Weapon System Development and Arms Control Studies in China’s Defense Science and Technology Information Center. Work on this paper was done while she was a Fellow at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (January-June 2000) and a Visiting Researcher at Princeton University’s Center for Energy and Environmental Studies (July 2000-January 2001). Frank von Hippel is a Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. His articles focus broadly on the technical basis for new nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation initiatives, including: deep cuts in the nuclear arsenals, taking U.S. and Russian missiles off hair- trigger alert, banning the production of fissile materials for weapons, and assisting Russia in down-sizing its nuclear weapon production complex. n December 1993, the U.N. General Assembly However, the FMCT, as currently envisioned, has a adopted, without dissent, a resolution calling for the potential loophole because it would permit the contin- Inegotiation of a fissile material production cut-off ued production of weapon-usable fissile material for use treaty (FMCT). In this resolution, the FMCT was de- in military reactors. It would therefore leave open a po- scribed as a “non-discriminatory, multilateral and inter- tential diversion route whereby countries could produce national and effectively verifiable treaty banning the or acquire weapon-usable fissile material and remove it production of fissile material (highly enriched uranium from international safeguards under the pretext that it or plutonium) for nuclear weapons or other nuclear ex- was to be used in military reactor fuel.
    [Show full text]
  • 60 Years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955 – 2015
    60 Years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955 – 2015 Part 2: United States Peter Lobner December 2015 Foreword This is Part 2 of a rather lengthy presentation that is my attempt to tell a complex story, starting from the early origins of the U.S. Navy’s interest in marine nuclear propulsion in 1939, resetting the clock on 17 January 1955 with the world’s first “underway on nuclear power” by the USS Nautilus, and then tracing the development and exploitation of nuclear propulsion over the next 60 years in a remarkable variety of military and civilian vessels created by eight nations. I acknowledge the great amount of work done by others who have posted information on the internet on international marine nuclear propulsion programs, naval and civilian nuclear vessels and naval weapons systems. My presentation contains a great deal of graphics from many internet sources. Throughout the presentation, I have made an effort to identify all of the sources for these graphics. If you have any comments or wish to identify errors in this presentation, please send me an e-mail to: [email protected]. I hope you find this presentation informative, useful, and different from any other single document on this subject. Best regards, Peter Lobner August 2015 United States Current nuclear vessel fleet Naval nuclear infrastructure U.S. naval reactors and reactor prototype facilities Navy nuclear submarines: Fast attack subs (SSN) Strategic ballistic missile subs (SSBN) Cruise missile subs (SSGN) Special operations subs Navy nuclear surface ships: Cruisers Aircraft carriers Nuclear vessel decommissioning and environmental cleanup Civilian nuclear marine vessels & reactors Merchant ship & floating nuclear power plant Radioisotope Thermoelectric generators (RTGs) at sea Marine nuclear power current trends U.S.
    [Show full text]