RECENTLY THE JEWISH INVISIBLE GOVERMENT TRANSERED FROM U.S TO EUROPE FOR BETTER GEOPOLITICAL LEADERSHIP OF THE WORLD.
THE SO CALLED FINANCIAL CRISIS IN EUROPE IS A POLITICAL TRICK OF JEWISH BANKERS TO ELIMINATE THE EUROPEAN STATE -NATIONS , THAT ARE AN OBSTACLE FOR THEIR FIRM ESTABLISHMENT IN EUROPE AND THEIR FUTURE GLOBAL DOMINATION(DICTARSHIP)
----- Original Message -----
From: Barney Richards
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 4:59 AM
Subject: Fw: [NucNews] FW $85 Billion+ for Nuclear Modernization: N.Y. Times on "Cost and Goals at Center of Arms Treaty Debate"
Nuclear disarmament? Don't get your hopes up.
Forwarded by Barney Richards
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Gerson
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 2:35 AM
Subject: [NucNews] FW $85 Billion+ for Nuclear Modernization: N.Y. Times on "Cost and Goals at Center of Arms Treaty Debate"
The No to War/No NATO conference here in Lisbon
is going well, even as NATO continues to chug
along. Yesterday's agreement to create a
NATO-wide "missile defense" system was ultimately
more about reconsolidation of U.S. influence and
expansion of military bases across Europe - i.e.
to prevent decoupling - than about actual
protection. There are of course the shield for
first strike sword and financial transfers from
tax payers to the military-industrial complex as well.
I just came across the following article in this
morning's New York Times. It provides a clear
description of what the $85+ billion are to be
spent for and the course of the debate which
includes the differene between building 80 new
nuclear warheads a year (Obama's preference) and 125, the old Bush goal.
Nasty stuff any way you look at it.
I also thought this might be helpful as we think
about how to integrate addressing the costs of
nuclear weapons into our cutting the military budget/meeting human needs work.
All the best,
Cost and Goals at Center of Arms Treaty Debate
By WILLIAM J.
New York Times
Published: November 19, 2010
The standoff this week over ratification of a new
arms control treaty centers on a simple phrase:
nuclear modernization. Those two words conceal a
little known, enormously ambitious plan to do
nothing less than rebuild the nation’s atomic complex for the 21st century.
At stake in the stalled negotiations between the
White House and Senate Republicans is not only
how much money to spend on the project but, more
philosophically, what purpose should be served by
building new complexes that can pump out more nuclear arms than ever.
In seeking Senate support for the so-called New
Start treaty with
the White House agreed to spend $85 billion over
the next decade upgrading the nuclear
system, only to find itself stymied by resistance from unsatisfied Republicans.
The deal-making puts President
in the paradoxical position of investing vast
sums in nuclear weapons even as he promises to
put the world on a path to eliminating them.
Even if the project goes forward with that much
money, that may not be the end of it. Experts in
nuclear weapons agree that the job of building a
set of giant factories that can make warheads for
the nation’s arsenal would take at least 20 years
and countless more billions than are currently budgeted.
“These individual projects have a long history of
taking longer and costing more than the original
estimates,” said Robert Alvarez, who from 1993 to
1999 was a policy adviser to the secretary of
energy, who runs the nation’s nuclear complex.
The main projects are in Kansas City, Mo.; Oak
Ridge, Tenn.; and Los Alamos, N.M., the
birthplace of the bomb. In each place, aging
buildings left over from the cold war would be
replaced, and the technology to build warheads would be updated.
Over all, the Obama administration would like to
be able to produce up to 80 warheads a year — far
more than are needed to replace the warheads
destroyed annually by testing, but far fewer than
the 125 or more warheads a year that the Bush administration had envisioned.
Nuclear experts say that without the
refurbishment program, the nation’s arsenal could
slowly shrink as warheads fail or are used up in destructive testing.
“This is a generational shift,” said Hans M.
Kristensen, a nuclear expert at the Federation of
American Scientists, a private group in
Washington. “It’s the start of a new era.”
But arms controllers say it is largely
unnecessary to rebuild the nation’s atomic
complex, especially for a president who has
pledged himself to a world free of nuclear arms
and has set the negotiation of a new arms treaty
with Russia as one of his main foreign policy objectives.
Whether or not the New Start treaty passes, it
seems likely that some modernization of the
nuclear weapons complex will move forward.
Whatever its budget, the Energy Department wants
the capability to make replacement warheads and keep its stockpile up to date.
If the clash over rebuilding the nation’s nuclear
arms complex has an epicenter, it lies in New
Mexico on the flanks of an extinct volcano near
an active geologic fault that has sent the project’s costs spiraling upward.
There, in the Jemez Mountains, amid the tall
pines and deep canyons of the Los Alamos
laboratory, work has begun on a weapons site
that, when finished, will rival in size the
Capitol in Washington, according to Nuclear
Watch, a private group in Santa Fe, N.M.
The jittery foundations of the project and the
safeguards meant to deal with earthquakes help
explain its soaring costs. Jay Coghlan, the
director of Nuclear Watch, said that the project
at Los Alamos started in 2004 with a price tag of
$660 million — a tiny fraction of its current
projected cost of up to $5.8 billion.
“It climbs ever upward,” Mr. Coghlan said in an
interview, of the estimated cost. “Nobody knows
just how high it’s going to go.” And this project
is just one of the planned refurbishments for Los Alamos.
A main rationale for the work lies in the
difficulty of knowing — in the absence of
explosive testing, which the United States gave
up in 1992 — whether the bombs will go off as
designed. The problem is similar to knowing
whether an automobile in storage will start when
turned on for the first time in decades.
Since the cold war, the federal government has
spent many billions of dollars to give the
nation’s bomb makers complex tools for assessing
warhead reliability. A rigorous test involves the
disassembly and destructive testing of a weapon’s constituent parts.
Mr. Kristensen said that, each year, the
government now does such examinations to the
point of destroying about seven warheads — one
for each of seven weapon types. Replacing them
would require seven new arms. But the Obama plan
envisions a far greater rate of production.
Arms controllers say that the excess capacity is
unneeded and that refurbishment of the existing complex would suffice.
“There’s no question they could maintain the
stockpile at a very high standard with the
existing facilities,” said Christopher E. Paine,
director of the nuclear program at the Natural
a private group in Washington.
At Los Alamos, the half-built complex taking
shape in Technical Area 55 is part of a sprawling
plant to make atomic triggers for nuclear arms.
The opaque name of the new complex? The Chemistry
and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility.
Ground for the first of two buildings was broken
in 2006, and it now stands complete. The other is to be finished in 2022.
The site lies roughly a mile from a fault line,
and controversy swirls over the seismic risks and
safeguards for the second building, which is to hold atomic fuel.
On Oct. 1, the Energy Department announced that
it would prepare a supplemental environmental
impact statement that would focus on the facility’s construction and operation.
The notice said new information from geotechnical
studies had resulted in updated plans “for
seismic safety.” The changes, it said, include
more structural steel, more concrete, and a
deeper foundation that will require more excavation.
Officials say the arms complex should be built at
Los Alamos because of security requirements, the
proximity of important ancillary facilities and
the prohibitive cost of moving it elsewhere.
“We’re looking at alternatives,” said Toni Chiri,
a spokeswoman for the National Nuclear Security
Administration, an arm of the Energy Department.
“Our preferred option is to build where we had planned to.”
The bigger question is whether all the pieces of
the giant project will move forward given the
long timeline, the astronomical bill and the
political maneuvering over the treaty’s approval.
“We are now at a crossroads,” Michael R.
Anastasio, the director of Los Alamos, told the
Senate in July. If the nation forgoes the new
factories, he said, “the costs associated with
maintaining the existing facilities will
eventually overwhelm the weapons program budgets.”
Still, Mr. Anastasio expressed concern over
whether the nation had the wherewithal for
revamping the complex and sustaining “an
appropriate budget over the several decades for which it will be required.”
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Visit Your Group
* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *
Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.
Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.