TMCnet News
Plutonium to be moved from U. California labs(Comtex Energy Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)LOS ANGELES, Apr 07, 2006 (Daily Bruin, U-WIRE via COMTEX) --In an effort to enhance weapons security in the United States, the Energy Department announced plans Wednesday to relocate plutonium from seven national laboratories, including two run by the University of California, to one new site. The relocation plans are part of a larger program to replace the nation's aging weapons, with a goal of building 125 new bombs per year by 2022. Due to the increasing cost of security after Sept. 11, 2001, the National Nuclear Security Administration believes it will be costly to protect plutonium at all seven sites. Experts in the Energy Department estimate that it would cost about $25 billion to provide security for the seven sites over the next two decades. But given the tensions that have existed between the United States and other countries over nuclear weapons policy, there has been concern from some politicians and scientists that revamping the nation's weapons stockpile could further damage U.S. relations with other countries. The plan includes taking plutonium from, among others, two University of California-run laboratories: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory, though the labs will continue to be centers for nuclear research. Plutonium stocks would be removed from Livermore by 2014 and from the rest of the laboratories by 2022, and a new site would be developed to defend research plutonium more efficiently. The location of that site is has not yet been determined. "By 2030, the vision I set forth is of a world where a smaller, safer, more secure stockpile, with assured reliability over the long term, is backed by an industrial and design capability to respond to changing technical, geopolitical or military needs," Tom D'Agustino, NNSA deputy administrator for defense programs, said at a hearing before the House Armed Service Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Wednesday. "It offers the best hope of achieving the president's vision of the smallest stockpile consistent with our national security needs," he said. Though sites such as Livermore are currently using plutonium to conduct weapons research, Livermore Spokesman David Schwoegler said much of the material is unnecessary. "Eighty percent of the plutonium we have on-site we don't need, and it's been boxed and ready to ship off-site for more than a decade," he said. But other lab officials have opposed the plan to remove the plutonium, saying that, even though most of the plutonium may not be currently in use, at least some is vital to their research. Though the government adds new nuclear bombs to its stock every 15 years, some of the United States' nuclear bombs date back to the 1960s, Schwoegler said. Some scientists have questioned whether new nuclear weaponry is necessary because there are conflicting ideas over how quickly nuclear bombs degrade. But Schwoegler explained the need to revamp the nation's nuclear weapons, drawing a comparison between how a person would treat an old car. "What would happen if you parked a car 45 years ago, never started it, left it out in the sun, and someone said tomorrow, 'You (have to get) in that car and start it, and everything in it needs to work perfectly'? Are there parts like plastic that would degrade? ... Are there adhesives that suddenly no longer would the glue stick? ... Well a nuclear weapon is about a million times more complex than a car," Schwoegler said. He also said replacing disposed weapons was essential to national security and to achieving certain quotas named in treaties the United States has signed. Some have criticized the plan based on concern over what effect the United States' new plan will have on the international community. Matthew Baum, a political science professor, said a process like this could cause anxiety in the international community, especially among countries that already second-guess the Bush administration's political motives. "We have eroded our credibility by several degrees in the past few years. Nuclear development will hurt ... our diplomacy," said Baum. Baum also said if the only intention of nuclear redevelopment is stronger national security, the process may still disturb other countries. "I see it being criticized as something that's going to look like the U.S. is flouting its (nuclear) non-proliferation commitments," Baum said. |