nerdgirl 0 #1 September 27, 2008 One area that has not gotten as much attention relative to discussions of the nuclear mission in context of USAH Minot and Hill AFB incidents is the role of strategy and driving decesions on new nuclear weapons. Should the uniformed military and/or the civilian defense leadership abrogate decisions, explicitly or implicity, on future/new nuclear weapons to DOE weapons lab? (1) Argument pro: the technical skill set needed to design and engineer new nuclear weapons is held by the DOE weapons laboratory, e.g., Los Alamos, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore. The scientists and engineers at those laboratories have unique skill sets that are rarely (if at all) found in the uniformed services or DoD civilian leadership. Monitoring and maintenance of the US nuclear stockpile is the responsibility of the scientists and engineers at the DOE Laboratories (not the delviery vehicles). They are, therefore, also in the best position to make decisions on future nuclear weapons and the military services and DoD civilian leadership should abrogate such decisions to the leadership of the DOE weapons laboratories. (2) Argument con: Policy on new nuclear weapons should be driven by US strategic interests, e.g., the US National Security Strategy and the US National Military Strategy. Strategy on future nuclear weapons should originate from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the leaders of the uniformed military not DOE ‘goco’ laboratories, regardless of unique technical capabilities. What do you think? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #2 September 27, 2008 Decisions in what regard? (1) Arg Pro references maintenance and stockpile. For storage, contamination, and maintenance issues I'd agree 100%. But the question arises, "to what extent does an individual engineer understand the complete scope of the project they're working on, vs. the understood scope of the USNSS/USNMS"? For an interesting read w/r/t: Quotethe technical skill set needed to design and engineer new nuclear weapons is held by the DOE weapons laboratory, e.g., Los Alamos, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore. The scientists and engineers at those laboratories have unique skill sets that are rarely (if at all) found in the uniformed services or DoD civilian leadership... civilian nuclear bomb design .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,196 #3 September 27, 2008 QuoteDecisions in what regard? (1) Arg Pro references maintenance and stockpile. For storage, contamination, and maintenance issues I'd agree 100%. But the question arises, "to what extent does an individual engineer understand the complete scope of the project they're working on, vs. the understood scope of the USNSS/USNMS"? For an interesting read w/r/t: Quotethe technical skill set needed to design and engineer new nuclear weapons is held by the DOE weapons laboratory, e.g., Los Alamos, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore. The scientists and engineers at those laboratories have unique skill sets that are rarely (if at all) found in the uniformed services or DoD civilian leadership... civilian nuclear bomb design .jim The skill sets referenced by Marg for future weapons design are rather more sophisticated than those needed to build a Fat Man replica. I've been "inside the fence" at Los Alamos and the people working there are very impressive indeed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #4 September 28, 2008 Quote For an interesting read civilian nuclear bomb design Concur that is an interesting read on simple gun-type munitions. Remember when it was originally published. The US stockpile relies on significantly more sophisticated designs, both in the current stockpile and those proposed for development (as John noted). The technical skill set which those in support of the DOE 'goco' labs driving new nuclear weapons policy refer is both tacit knowledge from the above-ground and below-ground/sea floor live nuclear tests and advanced computational mathematics/phsyics/engineering. There are still some sophisticated gun-type weapons in the US stockpile, e.g., see discussion here. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #5 September 28, 2008 QuoteI've been "inside the fence" at Los Alamos and the people working there are very impressive indeed. It was the really smart people who figured them out in the first place....I would prefer that the really smart people maintain control of them. Having far less smart people in control of them.. as has been seen in the last few years.... worries me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #6 September 28, 2008 QuoteIt was the really smart people who figured them out in the first place....I would prefer that the really smart people maintain control of them. Having far less smart people in control of them.. as has been seen in the last few years.... worries me. Putting aside for a moment the question of anyone's intellectual brilliance or management skills (remember former LANL director Pete Nanos?), I'm more curious w/r/t your opinion on policy toward new nuclear weapons development, as opposed to control on the current ones. Recognize that the two are not completely severable ... but who should drive policy on new nuclear weapons? Defense strategy or DOE laboratories? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,196 #7 September 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteIt was the really smart people who figured them out in the first place....I would prefer that the really smart people maintain control of them. Having far less smart people in control of them.. as has been seen in the last few years.... worries me. Putting aside for a moment the question of anyone's intellectual brilliance or management skills (remember former LANL director Pete Nanos?), I'm more curious w/r/t your opinion on policy toward new nuclear weapons development, as opposed to control on the current ones. Recognize that the two are not completely severable ... but who should drive policy on new nuclear weapons? Defense strategy or DOE laboratories? VR/Marg The laws of physics as relates to nukes and the state of the art in engineering are the fundamental constraints, and are probably outside the skill set and knowledge base of politicians and generals.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #8 September 28, 2008 Policy always comes from the executive branch. While those subject to that policy provide the technical know-how. The difference these days seems to be (to me anyway) that technology is not solely driven by government defense work (a la Cold War). Nowadays, technology is advancing at a rate faster than what DoD can absorb. Now, in terms of research and development, that can shape policy, and elements of DoE should maintain a steady flow of development in their areas of expertise, whether it's nuclear energy technology or nuclear weapons technology.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
