Why is Obama thinking of moving the nuclear weapons complex from the Energy Dept. to the Pentagon??

[bigtree]

Thursday, Feb. 5, 2009

Obama Considers Placing U.S. Nuclear Complex Under Pentagon Control

The Obama administration plans to study transferring management of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex from the Energy Department to the Defense Department, the Albuquerque Journal reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2008).

Specifically, the study would examine moving Energy's semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration to the Pentagon, a switch that would end more than 60 years of civilian oversight of the network of U.S. nuclear laboratories, according to a memo from the Management and Budget Office obtained by the Journal. The study is scheduled to be completed by the end of September, though the shift would not occur before 2011.

New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman (D), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, criticized the potential move. The laboratories, two of which are in New Mexico, are not restricted to defense research and would be impaired by the shift, he argued.

"This is a very shortsighted approach, and I will fight it tooth and nail if they intend to proceed with it," he said in a statement.

A former laboratory director, however, said placing the facilities under Pentagon control could have benefits. Laboratory management has faced "short-term upheavals" in recent years with changing presidential administrations, said C. Paul Robinson, former head of Sandia National Laboratories.

"The presence of a uniformed military could provide a continuity that has been lacking," he said in congressional testimony last year . . .

read more: http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090205_1586.php


I think this is a horrible and dangerous idea. My concern throughout my advocacy against nuclear weapons has been the conflation of the nuclear power industry with the ambitions of the Bush Pentagon to develop and produce a new generation of nuclear weapons or engage in a 'refurbishing' of the existing arsenal (a move which would require test explosions in a further abrogation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).

Many arguing for new license and support for new nuclear power plants have complained that nuclear power opponents have unfairly conflated what they see as a reasonable power source with nuclear weapon proliferation, causing public resentment and fear.

This move would vindicate that opposition by allowing the future of nuclear power to transform from a private, free-market enterprise (a money loser for U.S. investors) into a public entity. More pernicious would be the military's primacy in the management and development of the myriad of peaceful applications of nuclear energy that proponents argue provide justification for the industry, outside of energy production alone.

The implications of the military taking control of the nuclear industry, of course, has it's own ominous potential consequences to consider . . .

[TwilightGardener]

1. Security reasons?

[bigtree]

7. 60 years of civilian oversight

You can throw oversight out the window if the entire enterprise comes under military management and control.

[TwilightGardener]

8. Well, it does say that there has been lots of department upheaval lately--maybe Obama

is worried that some secrets or materials or technology will become compromised if it's not under military control.

[bigtree]

9. a fear argument

. . . with the Pentagon cast as a responsible paternal guardian. Interesting.

What becomes of oversight if the secretive military gains control? It was Oppenheimer who established the civilian oversight when he developed the first nuclear weapons.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Er...I guess if I were deathly afraid of the military being in charge

of nuclear weapons and technology, I'd already have been scared shitless all my life, in a Dr. Strangelove way. But the military is already in control of nukes, to a great extent, and we're all still here. I guess I'm not getting the alarm.

[bigtree]

12. I think I spelled out the meat of my concerns overhead

Any 'alarm' I might have would come from my standing skepticism of and opposition to most of the Pentagon's priorities, as expressed by the members of the holdover leadership.

[MadHound]

2. Huge ramifications in this move

Everything from security and oversight to which labs are going to get what money for their research. This is an insane and a real mistake. Glad I'm not in the field anymore, I can imagine the chaos that this move will create.

[bigtree]

10. It looks like an attempt to lop off projects

. . . in favor of a primary focus on defense.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Kinda like turning the banks over to the Mafia because they know how to handle money.

[bigtree]

6. disgusting how much free space this proposal is being given

. . . maybe the story needs more cowbell.

[DavidDvorkin]

4. It would make the budget numbers more honest

The defense budget is far bigger than the official number. A lot of military spending is disguised as being part of the budgets of other agencies, especially Energy and NASA.

[bigtree]

5. well, a separation of the non-defense applications and research from the defense ambitions

. . . might make sense.

But, if it's a matter of honest budgeting, I can't see how putting all of the money through the Pentagon sieve would help.

[FarCenter]

13. It would be better if the Department of Energy were really about Energy, instead of weapons

The 2009 budget proposal for the DoE is $23.8 billion.

Of this:

9.2 is National Nuclear Security Adminstration (maintenance/modernization of
the nuclear weapons stockpile)

6.7 is Environment (mostly for cleanup of Cold War nuclear facilities, but
some for civilian nuclear waste)

3.0 is Energy (which is really the part on new energy sources and energy
efficiency improvements)

3.8 is for Science (supports places like Fermilab, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and
the rest of the National Labs)

1.1 is for Corporate Management (overhead)

Since at least some of the 3.8 Science budget is in support of weapons, more than 2/3 of the DOE budget is for weapons. There is some relationship between nuclear reactors for submarines and aircraft carriers and nuclear reactors for electrical power generation, but not much.

The program for nuclear power should be funded in DOE, along with programs for other types of energy.

[bigtree]

14. This is about budget-cutting for the administration, more than anything else

For the DoD, however, this will become about the primacy of maintaining their slice of the pie over all others.

I do like the notion of separating the responsibilities for weapons from the Energy Dept., but I'm not certain that would be the result. I'm envisioning the merging of non-defense interests into a miserly afterthought in the face of the Pentagon's military priorities.

[bigtree]

15. .

[bigtree]

16. .