Direct lab funding to science that benefits humanity
On Oct. 10, ran a story titled “U.S. energy secretary: ‘Don’t mess with the United States.’ ” The story reports that Rick Perry, U.S. energy secretary, a Republican appointed by Donald Trump, made a visit to Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque and spoke to employees. “The United States is going to have a robust, modern weapons program, and we’ll send a clear message: Don’t mess with the United States.”
Not a surprising statement, considering he is in a position to issue political rhetoric regarding weapons programs. However, the statement implies an era of solid growth in the nuclear arms industry.
I want to mention that the country’s nuclear industry is deeply embedded into New Mexico’s economy. The budget for our nuclear facilities — Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant — is nearly the same as the budget to run our state.
As a result, it is unrealistic to think we could do without our nuclear facilities. The labs do balance positive scientific work with weapons work. For example, the Mars rover laserpowered spectroscopy instrument was developed at LANL. Still, the majority of the labs’ work is weapons-related.
The weapons work is overseen by the Department of Energy. Under the Department of Energy, we have an agency called the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the production facilities for nuclear weapons. The NNSA has more than 22,000 employees. The Department of Defense is the customer. If one wants to know how serious the Department of Defense is about its mission to have nuclear weapons in its arsenal, one should Google “Nuclear Posture Review 2018.”
In my view, the field of nuclear weapons is really a system composed of two elements: 1) the bombs and vehicles that deliver them, and 2) the political philosophy behind using them. Think of these elements as the chips and the salsa. They go together.
The chips: Approximately 1,500 deployed warheads, 18 submarines, 673 ICBM missiles and 200 strategic bombers are in place. The Department of Defense claims, in the aforementioned Nuclear Posture Review 2018, that the nuclear weapons infrastructure needs to be “modernized.” It specifically calls out nuclear command, control and communication upgrades. It is unclear whether a new warhead development plan is part of modernization. (The issue of manufacturing new plutonium pits seems to be geared to sustaining the current stockpile.)
The salsa is made up of deterrence, which is “the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of consequences.” This is the concept of mutually assured destruction.
How do we evaluate the performance of these elements? Well, although there have been a number of close calls, a nuclear conflict has not happened, so deterrence seems to work and there hasn’t been an accidental detonation. Nonetheless the U.S., Russia and China continue to develop weapons.
Soon after World War II, the military and our politicians, aided by Los Alamos scientists, decided to produce bigger and better nuclear bombs — a splendidly tremendous idea that backfired when the plans were stolen by Russian spies at LANL. A cold war nuclear arms races ensued, and beginning in the 1980s, treaties began to curb it.
Our congressional delegation in Washington, D.C., advocates for increased funding for the labs pretty much nonstop. I agree with them as long as they are not cheerleading for the creation of new nuclear weapons. This funding should be directed to science that improves conditions for humanity and not toward creating new weapons to end it.
Barney Magrath is a member of the Nuclear Safety Advocacy Group. It supports nuclear science and funding for the nuclear labs. It also supports existing arms control treaties as well as the reduction in the number of nuclear weapons. It does not support a renewed arms race.