DOCSLIB.ORG

THE DEATH of a NUCLEAR WARHEAD” the Environmental and Health Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Complex Activities Including a Focus on the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE DEATH of a NUCLEAR WARHEAD” the Environmental and Health Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Complex Activities Including a Focus on the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas “THE DEATH OF A NUCLEAR WARHEAD” The Environmental and Health Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Complex Activities Including a Focus on the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas A Global Green USA Legacy Program Report By Dr. Jasmine Aimaq This project was made possible by a generous grant from the Citizens’ Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund/RESOLVE © Global Green USA www.globalgreen.org Global Green USA, the United States affiliate of Green Cross International, fosters a global value shift toward a sustainable and secure world through education, advocacy, partnerships, and programs focused on the safe elimina- tion of weapons of mass destruction, stem- ming climate change, reducing resource use, and preventing conflicts over fresh water. Acting as a catalyst, facilitator, and mediator, Global Green encourages collab- orative approaches and crosscutting solu- tions to environmental challenges. The goal of Global Green USA’s Legacy Program is to create a legacy of peace by creating a sustainable and secure future. We accomplish this by facilitating commu- nication and dialogue among stakeholders in the U.S. and abroad to advance the proper, accelerated cleanup of the legacy of military toxic contamination; supporting the safe and sound demilitarization of both conventional and mass destruction weapons, and thereby full implementation of arms control treaties; and promoting the sustainable reuse of affected facilities. © Global Green USA www.globalgreen.org Global Green USA sincerely thanks the Citizens' Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund (CMTA) for its generous support of this project. Thank you also to individuals who agreed to be interviewed for this report, including those who spoke frankly on the condition of anonymity. The author also wishes to thank several individuals who were instrumental in bringing this project to fruition. Matt Petersen, President of Global Green USA, and Dr. Paul Walker, Legacy Program Director, contributed both substantive and editorial suggestions to the project and this report. Dr. Wayne Glass and Dr. Bennett Ramberg also provided valuable comments and input. Ian Treacher and Molly Danahy, students of International Relations at the University of Southern California, helped compile some of the research. The author assumes full responsibility for any errors or omissions in this report. © Global Green USA www.globalgreen.org “THE DEATH OF A NUCLEAR WARHEAD” TABLE OF CONTENTS “The Death of a Nuclear Warhead” 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY New World Order, Lingering Dangers 2 In This Report 2 Objective 2 Questions and Approach 2 The Health and Environmental Effects of Nuclear Weapons Materials 3 Plutonium 3 Uranium 5 Dangerous Non-Fissile Materials 5 The Nuclear Weapons Complex 6 Principal Responsibilities of the DOE – and an Alarming Trend 6 The Nuclear Weapons Complex Today 7 "The Death of a Nuclear Wahread -- What Happens to Decommissioned Weapons?" 9 The Pantex Plant 9 Why Focus on the Pantex Plant? 9 Non-Transparent Policies around the Nuclear Weapons Complex 11 Unsafe, Unsound? 12 Backed-Up and Delayed: Government Safety Studies 12 Don’t Drink the Water…in Amarillo, Texas? 13 Amarillo’s Airport: Too Close For Comfort 13 Fireworks 13 Citizen Steps to Safeguard Health: Going It Alone 14 The DOE’s Pantex Baseline Risk Assessment: Inaccurate and Incomplete? 14 Possible Policy Directions 16 DIAGRAM The “Death of a Nuclear Warhead—What Happens to Decommissioned Weapons?” 10 © Global Green USA www.globalgreen.org “THE DEATH OF A NUCLEAR WARHEAD” “The Death of a Nuclear Warhead” The Environmental and Health Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Complex Activities Including a Focus on the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is well known that the use of a nuclear weapon would maintenance and disassembly of nuclear-weapons have devastating effects on human health and the environ- materials; ment. Detonation, however, is not the only process by • the proximity of the Pantex Plant to Amarillo’s Rick which the dangers of nuclear weapons are manifested. The Husband International Airport runways at which air- production, storage and disassembly of nuclear weapons force exercises are conducted, also raising concerns pose serious risks of their own. Activities at the about potential accidents; Department of Energy’s Nuclear Weapons Complex • the absence of an abundant water supply near the (NWC) put the environment and human health in danger. Plant, raising concerns about the potential of an uncontainable fire that could carry fissile and other Global Green USA is committed to the elimination of all materials for miles; weapons of mass destruction, and urges the government to • significant delays in government sponsored safety stud- continue disarmament efforts. The disassembly of nuclear ies at the Plant; weapons must, however, be conducted in a manner that • government neglect in adequately addressing emerging minimizes danger to human health and the environment. health problems and citizen concerns near the Plant; There are a number of risks involved in disassembly, some and unique, others similar to the dangers of the production of • potentially serious inaccuracies and inadequacies in the these weapons. Even low doses of fissile and other materials government conducted Baseline Risk Assessment for used in nuclear weapons, for instance, have been shown to the Pantex plant, substantiated by an independent pose serious risks to human health and the environment. report commissioned by a citizen group. This report examines these and other dangers, taking a particularly close look at the NWC’s Pantex Plant Any resolution of these problems requires the participation (Amarillo, Texas), where nuclear weapons slated for of both the affected communities and the local and federal removal from the stockpile are disassembled. Problems government. Global Green USA encourages key stakehold- include: ers to engage in a dialogue about how best to mitigate the dangers associated with the disassembly and storage of • safety and security surrounding the mechanical disas- nuclear warheads and materials. Community involvement sembly of the weapon, raising concerns about potential must be accompanied by government commitment and accidents; actions. • contamination of the Ogallala Aquifer (the principal freshwater source for the Texas panhandle), with chromium and heavy metals associated with the nearby © Global Green USA 1 www.globalgreen.org “THE DEATH OF A NUCLEAR WARHEAD” “The Death of a Nuclear Warhead” In This Report The Environmental and Health Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Complex Activities Objective Including a Focus on the Pantex Plant in When nuclear weapons are discussed in the media, the Amarillo, Texas focus is usually on the possibility of their use in war. While some attention has been paid to environmental and health New World Order, Lingering Dangers issues surrounding nuclear weapons, the information remains scattered, and draws attention mainly to the pro- The Cold War ended over a decade ago. But its legacy duction and maintenance process rather than to disassem- remains, and in some respects is only beginning to mani- bly and the future operations of Nuclear Weapons fest itself. The nuclear weapons stockpile of the United Complex sites. Existing research on fissile and other dan- States, one of the greatest dangers born of the Cold War, gerous materials needs to be consolidated into a compre- is still here. So are the many risks associated with it. hensive presentation, drawing on recent information and interviews with key players. This report addresses this need, Some risks are obvious: theft, accident, and the doomsday introducing the general reader to the environmental and vision of a war involving the most terrible weapons made health concerns surrounding the disassembly of nuclear by man. A frightening scenario of a different kind is upon weapons and the storage of fissile and related materials. us already, however. The environment and health of the American people have been put at risk by activities at the To illustrate the potential effects of these processes, this Nuclear Weapons Complex (NWC), run by the report includes a discussion on the Department of Energy’s Department of Energy (DOE).1 (DOE) Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas.2 The Pantex Plant is where all decommissioned nuclear weapons are disassem- The production of nuclear weapons in the United States bled and where fissile materials are either stored or begin has ceased, but the environmental and health effects of their journey to other NWC facilities. The magnitude of their production and maintenance continue to be felt. the disassembly process and its consequences is quite stag- Less commonly recognized is the fact that the disassembly gering. Currently, the United States and Russia must dis- of nuclear weapons, mandated by international arms con- pose of some 100 tons of plutonium recovered from dis- trol agreements, involves many of the same dangers asso- mantled nuclear warheads.3 In the United States, all pluto- ciated with production, as well as additional risks of its nium pits from disassembled weapons are, to our knowl- own. Global Green USA is committed to the elimination edge, currently stored at the Pantex facility. of all weapons of mass destruction in an environmentally safe and sound manner. It is imperative that the public be Questions and Approach informed of current controversies surrounding NWC The central question in this report is thus: What is the activities, and that the government fulfill its obligation of scope of known and potential environmental and health not only reducing our nuclear weapons stockpile, but also dangers of fissile and related materials, and what infor- safeguarding the health of the public, DOE workers, and mation can be gleaned from studying the disassembly our natural resources. and storage process at the Pantex Plant? To address these issues, the report is structured as follows. 1 The Nuclear Weapons Complex comprises eight sites. For site locations and activities, see the table on page 8. 2 The disassembly of nuclear weapons is currently on hold. Since 2000, no nuclear weapons have been retired from the US stockpile and none are slated for further disassembly.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Department of Energy National Laboratories and Plants: Leadership in Cloud Computing (Brochure), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
    Department of Energy National Laboratories and Plants Leadership in Cloud Computing Prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; NREL is operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. JJJTABLE OF CONTENTS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE ........................................34 LABORATORIES AND PLANTS ......................................................4 Current State ...............................................................................34 Cloud Vision .................................................................................34 ABOUT THIS REPORT .....................................................................8 Key Initiatives ..............................................................................34 History of Computing ...............................................................9 Evolution of Computing Models ...........................................9 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY ....................................36 What is Cloud Computing? ....................................................9 Current State and Future Work ............................................36 Cloud Security .............................................................................10 RightPath – DOE/NNSA Cloud Strategy ...........................11 PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY ..............38 Vision ..............................................................................................38
    [Show full text]
  • Final Supplement Analysis for the Final
    DOE/EIS-0225-SA-06 June 2018 FINAL SUPPLEMENT ANALYSIS FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE PANTEX PLANT AND ASSOCIATED STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WEAPON COMPONENTS U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration NNSA Production Office SA for the Pantex Plant SWEIS June 2018 SUMMARY The Pantex Plant (Pantex or Plant) is located in the Texas Panhandle, approximately 17 miles northeast of Amarillo, Texas. Pantex is the primary site for the assembly of nuclear weapons for the nation’s stockpile and disassembly of nuclear weapons being retired from the stockpile. Pantex also evaluates, repairs, and retrofits nuclear weapons in the stockpile; provides interim storage for nuclear material; develops, fabricates, and tests chemical explosives and explosive components for nuclear weapons; and supports the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) initiatives. In November 1996, DOE issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapon Components (DOE/EIS-0225; DOE 1996a) (referred to as the Pantex Site-Wide EIS [or SWEIS]). The SWEIS assessed impacts on areas of the human and natural environment potentially affected by operations performed at Pantex. The SWEIS evaluated activities associated with ongoing operations, including onsite nuclear material storage, transportation of nuclear material to an alternate site for interim storage, and transportation of classified components between Pantex and other sites occurring over
    [Show full text]
  • Highly Enriched Uranium Inventory
    ENT OF TM EN R E A R P G E Y D HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM U N A I C T I E R E INVENTORY D M ST A ATES OF AMOUNTS OF HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM IN THE UNITED STATES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF SECURITY AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE JANUARY 2006 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 2 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ......................................................................... 2 SECTION 2 U.S. HEU INVENTORY .......................................... 3 Y-12, PANTEX, AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENT ......................................................... 4 IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY ............................................................................ 4 SAVANNAH RIVER SITE ..................................................................................... 4 PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT ........................................................... 5 ROCKY FLATS ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY SITE ................................................ 5 LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY .................................................................. 5 OTHER SITES WITH SMALL HEU HOLDINGS .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Doe-Fy2021-Laboratory-Table 1.Pdf
    DOE/CF-0168 Department of Energy FY 2021 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables Preliminary February 2020 Office of Chief Financial Officer DOE/CF-0168 Department of Energy FY 2021 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include discretionary and supplemental funding. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. February 2020 Office of Chief Financial Officer Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Table of Contents Laboratory Table by Congressional Control Laboratory Table Summary......................................................................................................................................1 Laboratory Table by Congressional Control4 Ames Laboratory..................................................................................................................................................4 Ames Site Office...................................................................................................................................................5 Argonne National Laboratory...............................................................................................................................6 Argonne Site Office..............................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Additional Actions Could Help Improve
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees June 2019 NUCLEAR WEAPONS Additional Actions Could Help Improve Management of Activities Involving Explosive Materials GAO-19-449 June 2019 NUCLEAR WEAPONS Additional Actions Could Help Improve Management of Activities Involving Explosive Materials Highlights of GAO-19-449, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found NNSA is responsible for the Five National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) contractor-operated sites management and security of the U.S. conduct activities to design and produce explosive materials. There are about nuclear stockpile. NNSA has ongoing 100 different nuclear weapon components that contain explosive materials (see and planned efforts to modernize figure). Each site assumes primary responsibility for certain activities, but most nearly all of the weapons in the activities require collaboration by multiple sites, according to NNSA officials and stockpile, which require new explosive contractor representatives. In 2018, NNSA began adopting a centralized components. The production of some approach to managing these activities and coordinating them across its sites. key explosives ceased in the early 1990s, and much of the infrastructure Key Explosive-Containing Components in a Generic Nuclear Weapon supporting this work is aging, making it expensive and difficult to maintain. The Senate Report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to review NNSA’s high explosive capabilities specific to nuclear weapons. This report examines (1) explosives activities that NNSA and its sites conduct and how NNSA manages them; (2) challenges NNSA officials and contractor representatives Notes: Symbols do not show actual designs.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision Issued on the Date Below Was Subject to a GAO Protective Order
    Comptroller General of the United States United States General Accounting Office DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Washington, DC 20548 The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Day & Zimmermann Pantex Corporation File: B-286016; B-286016.2; B-286016.3; B-286016.4 Date: November 9, 2000 Richard J. Conway, Esq., Jacob B. Pankowski, Esq., and Denis W. Kohl, Esq., Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, for the protester. John W. Chierichella, Esq., Anne B. Perry, Esq., and Marjorie D. Purcell, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for BWXT Pantex, LLC, an intervenor. Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Joseph A. Lenhard, Esq., Wilfred E. Maez, Esq., and Keith R. Landolt, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against agency past performance evaluation rating protester, the incumbent contractor at nuclear weapons plant, as only satisfactory overall when awardee was rated as outstanding overall is denied, where record supports agency determination that protester has had continuing, significant problems in ensuring that plant is fully able to perform critical mission, necessary to ensure the safety and reliability of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile, of assembling and disassembling nuclear weapons in support of nuclear stockpile life extension and evaluation programs, while the awardee’s team has a very good performance record under a number of relevant contracts. DECISION Day & Zimmermann Pantex Corporation (DZX) protests the Department of Energy’s (DOE) award of a contract to BWXT Pantex, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Site Environmental Report Pantex Plant
    For Calendar Year 2013 Site Environmental Report Pantex Plant This page was intentionally left blank Site Environmental Report Pantex Plant 2013 Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Production Office Prepared by Environmental Stewardship Department, Waste Operations Department, and the Projects Division Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC (CNS Pantex) Amarillo, Texas 79120‐0020 www.pantex.com This page was intentionally left blank Pantex Plant ~~~ Amarillo, Texas Help Us Make This Site Environmental Report More Useful for You! We want this summary to be easy to read and useful. To help continue this effort, please take a few minutes to let us know if this annual report meets your needs. Please tear out this page and mail or fax it to: Zelda Martinez, Pantex Plant/12-132 P.O. Box 30020, Amarillo, TX 79120-0020 Phone: (806) 477-6049; Fax: (806) 477-5613 1. How do you use the information in this summary? Please circle. To become more familiar with Pantex Plant monitoring To help me make a decision about moving to the Texas Panhandle To send to others outside the Texas Panhandle To prepare for public meetings Other (please explain). 2. What parts of the summary do you use? Please circle. Pantex Plant overview/mission Site management Environmental compliance Environmental monitoring Quality assurance Regulatory oversight Current issues and actions 3. Does this guide contain? Enough detail Too much detail Too little detail Comments: 4. If you could change this guide to make it more readable and useful to you, what would you change? What is your affiliation? Please circle.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Flats Site History Events Leading to the Creation of the Weapons Complex and Events at the Rocky Flats Site from the 1930S to Present by Pat Buffer the 30S
    Rocky Flats Site History events leading to the creation of the weapons complex and events at the Rocky Flats Site from the 1930s to present by Pat Buffer The 30s: 1934 — The Italian physicist Enrico Fermi produces fission. December 1938 — Two scientists in Nazi Germany, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann, discover the process of fission in uranium. Lise Meitner, Hahn’s former colleague (a refugee from Nazism then staying in Sweden) and her nephew, Otto Frisch, confirm the Hahn-Strassmann discovery and communicate their findings to Danish Nobel laureate Niels Bohr. January 26, 1939 — Bohr, accompanied by Fermi, reports on the Hahn-Strassman results at a meeting on theoretical physics in Washington, D.C. August 1939 — Hungarian refugee scientists Lee Szilard, Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner, fearing that the energy released in nuclear fission might be used in bombs by the Germans, persuade Albert Einstein, the century’s premier physicist, to send a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt informing him of German atomic research and the potential for a bomb. This letter prompts Roosevelt to form a special committee to investigate the military implications of atomic research. October 1939 — Roosevelt decides to act and appoints Lyman J. Briggs, director of the National Bureau of Standards, head of the Advisory Committee on Uranium. November 1939 — The Uranium Committee recommends that the government purchase graphite and uranium oxide for fission research. The 40s: June 1940 — Vannevar Bush, president of the Carnegie Foundation, is named head of the National Defense Research Committee. The Uranium Committee becomes a scientific subcommittee of Bush’s organization.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008-06 Annual Meeting
    June 8-12, 2008 • Anaheim, California • Disneyland Hotel AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY: 2008 ANNUAL MEETING “Nuclear Science and Technology: Now Arriving on Main Street” EMBEDDED TOPICAL MEETINGS: •2008 International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants (ICAPP’08) •Isotopes for Medicine and Industry •Nuclear Fuels and Structural Materials for the Next Generation Nuclear Reactors (NFSM) PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS: • Preparing for the Nuclear Engineering Professional Engineering Exam” • Digital Instrumentation and Control and Human Machine Interface (ICHMI) OFFICIAL PROGRAM our most sincere thanks to the following contributors for their support of the 2008 ANS Annual Meeting “Nuclear Science and Technology: Now Arriving on Main Street” Embedded Topical Meeting: 2008 International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants (ICAPP’08) Embedded Topical Meeting: Isotopes for Medicine and Industry Embedded Topical Meeting: Nuclear Fuels and Structural Materials for the Next Generation Nuclear Reactors (NFSM) PLATINUM Bechtel Power Corporation Entergy Nuclear Southern California Edison GOLD Constellation Energy Fluor Corporation Pacific Gas & Electric Westinghouse Electric Company SILVER AREVA Duke Energy EXCEL Services Corporation Exelon Nuclear FirstEnergy Foundation STP Nuclear Operating Company Washington Group International BRONZE AEP/Indiana Michigan PWR Company – NUC Lockheed Martin Progress Energy Southern Nuclear Operating Company The Babcock & Wilcox Company SPONSOR PPL Corporation Thank You! 2 2008 ANS ANNUAL MEETING:
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-19-5, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY: Performance Evaluations
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters February 2019 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Performance Evaluations Could Better Assess Management and Operating Contractor Costs GAO-19-5 February 2019 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Performance Evaluations Could Better Assess Management and Operating Contractor Costs Highlights of GAO-19-5, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found In fiscal years 2006 through 2016, the In fiscal years 2006 through 2016, six offices within the Department of Energy federal government spent almost $193 (DOE) generally used one of three different approaches to evaluate billion on DOE’s M&O contracts—a management and operating (M&O) contractor performance. Although these form of contract that traces its origins approaches varied in the performance criteria and methodologies used for to the Manhattan Project. Six DOE determining contractor ratings and incentives, all the offices annually set offices use M&O contracts to manage expectations for contractors and assessed performance. and operate federally owned sites that perform work to fulfill DOE’s diverse In analyzing DOE’s fiscal year 2016 Performance Evaluation Reports (PER), missions, such as conducting scientific GAO found that these reports provided less information on M&O contractors’ research and maintaining nuclear cost performance than on contractors’ technical and administrative performance. weapons. The cost information provided in the PERs often was not detailed, did not indicate the significance of the performance being described, and applied only to GAO was asked to review DOE’s performance management of its M&O specific activities. Further, the information is of limited use for acquisition contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex: Overview of Department of Energy Sites
    The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex: Overview of Department of Energy Sites Updated March 31, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45306 SUMMARY R45306 The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex: March 31, 2021 Overview of Department of Energy Sites Amy F. Woolf Responsibility for U.S. nuclear weapons resides in both the Department of Defense Specialist in Nuclear (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE). DOD develops, deploys, and operates the Weapons Policy missiles and aircraft that deliver nuclear warheads. It also generates the military requirements for the warheads carried on those platforms. DOE, and its semiautonomous James D. Werner National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), oversee the research, development, Section Research Manager testing, and acquisition programs that produce, maintain, and sustain the nuclear warheads. To achieve these objectives, the facilities that constitute the nuclear weapons complex produce nuclear materials, fabricate nuclear and nonnuclear components, assemble and disassemble nuclear warheads, conduct scientific research and analysis to maintain confidence in the reliability of existing warheads, integrate components with nuclear weapons delivery vehicles, and conduct support operations. The Trump Administration raised concerns about the aging infrastructure of facilities in the nuclear weapons complex. The Obama Administration had proposed, and Congress had funded, budget increases for these facilities during the 2010s. Nevertheless, the Trump Administration argued, in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, that “the United States has not pursued the investments needed to ensure that the infrastructure has the capacity to not only maintain the current nuclear stockpile but also to respond to unforeseen technical or geopolitical developments.” The Trump Administration then proposed, and Congress appropriated, significant additional increases in funding for the nuclear weapons complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Print the Rest of the Way, Two by Two, to Our Designated Aircraft
    PHOTOBOMB t 2 4 IN THIS ISSUE An unarmed Trident II D5LE 2 Letters: The warfighter issue missile launches from the Ohio-class ballistic missile The relationship between the Lab and the submarine USS Maine off the military dates back to the Manhattan Project. coast of San Diego, California, on Seventy-seven years later, the military remains February 12, 2020. “Today’s test the Lab’s most important customer, and the Lab demonstrates the continued provides a way for many veterans to continue reliability of our sea-based 4 their service to the nation. nuclear deterrent, which is made 4 Abstracts: Notes and news possible by our sailors, civilians, and industry partners, who from around the Lab Microwaves bring expertise and dedication are used for weapon ignition, scientists to the mission,” says Vice power cruise missiles with corn bran, Admiral Johnny Wolfe, director Lab employees take external assignments of the Navy’s Strategic Systems around the world, and more. Programs. In the event of a real launch, the Trident II could carry the Los Alamos–designed W76 FEATURES or W88 warheads. 14 Served, still serving Military veterans Photo: U.S. Navy /Thomas Gooley 14 leave one mission to find another at Los Alamos. 38 38 A wealth of stealth The B-2 Spirit can penetrate an enemy’s most sophisticated defenses and threaten heavily defended targets. The Lab's senior Air Force Fellow shares what it’s like to fly the 31-year-old, 160,000-pound nuclear-capable bomber. 50 A moment of glory As the Minuteman III missile nears retirement, the knowledge we gain from testing the system has become more important than ever—even when things don’t go as planned.
    [Show full text]