|published Wednesday, May 29, 2013 ||244 Views :: 4 Comments|
May 26, 2013
By the New York Times Editorial Board
From The New York Times
The United States has about 180 B61 gravity nuclear bombs based in Europe. They are the detritus of the cold war, tactical weapons deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey to protect NATO allies from the once-feared Soviet advantage in conventional arms. But the cold war is long over, and no American military commander can conceive of their ever being used. Even so, President Obama has put $537 million in his 2014 budget proposal to upgrade these bombs. When all is said and done, experts say, the cost of the rebuilding program is expected to total around $10 billion — $4 billion more than an earlier projection — and yield an estimated 400 weapons, fitted with new guided tail kits so that they are more reliable and accurate than the current ones.
This is a nonsensical decision, not least because it is at odds with Mr. Obama’s own vision. In a seminal speech in Prague in 2009 and a strategy review in 2010, Mr. Obama advocated the long-term goal of a world without nuclear arms and promised to reduce America’s reliance on them. He also promised not to field a new and improved warhead.
|published Monday, April 22, 2013 ||574 Views :: 0 Comments|
Plan to spend $10bn on updating nuclear bombs goes against 2010 pledge not to deploy new weapons, say critics
April 21, 2013
By Julian Borger
From the Guardian (UK)
Nearly 200 B61 gravity bombs would be given new tail fins that would turn them into guided weapons delivered by stealth F35 fighter-bombers. Photograph: EPA
Barack Obama has been accused of reneging on his disarmament pledges after it emerged the administration was planning to spend billions on upgrading nuclear bombs stored in Europe to make the weapons more reliable and accurate.
Under the plan, nearly 200 B61 gravity bombs stockpiled in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey would be given new tail fins that would turn them into guided weapons that could be delivered by stealth F35 fighter-bombers.
"This will be a significant upgrade of the US nuclear capability in Europe," said Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of Nuclear Scientists. "It flies directly in the face of the pledges Obama made in 2010 that he would not deploy new weapons."
|published Tuesday, November 06, 2012 ||2088 Views :: 2 Comments|
Nov 4, 2012
By John Fleck
From the Albuquerque Journal
Pictured is a B61 nuclear bomb. The National Nuclear Security Administration has underestimated by billions more how much it will cost to refurbish the nation’s stockpile of B61s, according to an independent cost assessment. (COURTESY OF wikipedia)
The National Nuclear Security Administration, already under fire for billions of dollars of cost overruns, has underestimated by billions more how much it will cost to refurbish the nation’s stockpile of B61 nuclear bombs, according to an independent cost assessment commissioned by the agency.
Already juggling its budget to cope with existing problems, the agency will likely need to come up with another $1 billion per year for the next few years if the project is to go ahead as currently envisioned, according to a summary of the assessment obtained by the Journal.
|published Thursday, April 12, 2012 ||1758 Views :: 0 Comments|
|published Monday, April 02, 2012 ||1097 Views :: 1 Comments|
April 1, 2012
The following segment from CBS's Sunday Morning features an interview with ANA member Marylia Kelley from Tri-Valley Communities Against Radioactive Environments (Tri-Valley CAREs) discussing the prospects of achieving "ignition" and developing commercial fusion power production at the National Ignition Facility located inside of Lawrence Livermore Lab in California.
|published Friday, February 17, 2012 ||1779 Views :: 2 Comments|
February 17, 2012
By Michael Coleman and John Fleck
From the Albuquerque Journal
WASHINGTON — U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu offered scant hope for a stalled plutonium project at Los Alamos National Laboratory on Thursday, but he did offer some encouragement for those who want to store additional nuclear waste near Carlsbad.
Chu told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the Department of Energy decided to abandon — at least for now — a planned LANL plutonium lab because of budget constraints. However, he said design work at the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility will continue until it is 90 percent complete.
“That’s very prudent because for a number of reasons, before you start construction it is best to have most of it designed,” Chu said at the hearing to examine President Barack Obama’s 2013 DOE budget.
|published Friday, February 10, 2012 ||3378 Views :: 2 Comments|
for release February 10, 2012
For further information: Katherine Fuchs (202) 544-0217
The overriding issue for the Monday, Feb. 13 budget release is: Will the Obama Administration continue to increase funding for unnecessary nuclear programs in light of current fiscal constraints? The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA), a national network of communities downwind and downstream from U.S. nuclear facilities, is concerned that out of control spending on nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities will divert resources from legally required environmental cleanup, sustainable energy programs, and critical nonproliferation efforts. Here are some key questions that the Department of Energy (DOE) budget should address:
- In light of economic reality, will the Administration rein in funding for oversized, unnecessary nuclear facilities to produce plutonium and highly enriched uranium components for weapons? At a time when nuclear stockpiles are being cut, why does the US need expanded production capacity for plutonium pits (the fissile cores or “triggers” of nuclear weapons) and highly enriched uranium (secondaries)? The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility would directly support production of plutonium pits, yet the JASONs determined that plutonium pits have a shelf life of 85+ years. The Uranium Processing Facility as planned is oversized and should be redesigned to dismantle warheads and down-blend uranium.
|published Monday, January 23, 2012 ||2392 Views :: 5 Comments|
January 20, 2012
By Todd Jacobson
From the Nuclear Weapons & Materials Monitor
With less than a month remaining before the Obama Administration’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget release, Los Alamos National Laboratory officials are bracing for what is expected to be a massive cut to its biggest project: the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility. The multi-billion-dollar project that will replace the lab’s aging Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility has come under fire in recent months, both from Congress and from government watchdog groups like the Project on Government Oversight and the Los Alamos Study Group. Although lab and NNSA officials haven’t said anything publicly about the project, lab officials are privately expecting the worst when it comes to funding for the project, which is estimated to cost between $3.7 and $5.8 billion. “We’re not expecting funding for CMRR,” one official told NW&M Monitor. “Right now, we’re planning to go without.”
|published Monday, August 01, 2011 ||1979 Views :: 0 Comments|
The following Jul. 30, 2011 article from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram highlights the work of ANA member group Peace Farm and quotes former ANA board member Mavis Belisle.
AMARILLO -- Deep in the Texas Panhandle, farmland sprawls as far as the eye can see, dotted by the occasional wind farm and herd of cattle.
It feels like the heart of the middle of nowhere.
Tucked away in the vastness is one of the nation's most heavily secured facilities, an 18,000-acre complex that houses thousands of the most dangerous weapons ever made.
|published Friday, May 27, 2011 ||1459 Views :: 0 Comments|
May 27, 2011
By Phil Parker
From the Albuquerque Journal
Warnings of death and devastation echoed Thursday night as dozens of speakers took turns decrying Los Alamos National Laboratory’s plan to construct a new plutonium lab.
“I feel like I’m standing on a train track, and the train is coming full speed ahead,” said Santa Fean Adele Caruthers.
Officially, the meeting held at Santa Fe Community College for public comment was a federally mandated part of the supplemental environmental impact study being conducted by the National Nuclear Security Administration as it prepares to build a Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility at LANL.
The building is projected to cost $5.8 billion and scheduled to be completed sometime after 2020.
The meeting was the last of four such meetings held around the state this week, and almost every one of the dozens of speakers Thursday was against the lab.