Slashdot Mirror


Lawrence Livermore Lab On The Chopping Block?

guttentag writes "According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Bush's Homeland Security plan calls for transferring $1.2 billion of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's $1.5 billion budget to a new Department of Homeland Security under Tom Ridge. However, the plan transfers only 4 percent of the lab's employees. Ridge's explanation of the numbers: "I cannot give you the kind of explanation you need to deal with that imbalance." LLNL funded and houses the ASCI White supercomputer, among other cool projects." While Livermore has an impressive research record, we would miss most the laser lab from Tron.

5 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Misprint by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Cancel the flames. Tom Ridge says it is probably a misprint.

  2. Wont die by NovaX · · Score: 4, Informative

    The title makes it sound like LLNL will be shut down. I know numerous people who work there, most of which on a massive project called NIF. Tron was shot in SHEVA, which was replaced by NOVA (deriving my nick), which is being replaced by NIF. NIF is the largest fusion laser, based on ICF principles, and is under full swing of construction. It will be brought up later this year. In fact, France has a smaller 8-laser version that just came up this last week and LLNL employees flown there in order to observe any difficulties. This project is a multi-billion dollar one which I severely doubt the government will allow to be scrapped due to budget cuts like this.

    So, the most I can see if LLNL being streamlined. I doubt Congress will even give 10% of what they're requesting out of LLNL's budget. LLNL does valuable research in weapon, energy, materials, etc. The government labs are run under the DOE, but do most of their expensive work for the DOD, such as NIF and ASCII being mostly for nuclear research. When the lab scare with China occured it was suggested that the DOD take over the labs, but instead they finally got their act together. Since this is most of the budget, I could only guess they are really trying to transfer the lab to this new department or the Bush administration going to screw everything up.

    --

    "Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
  3. Re:Don't worry. Yet. by TWR · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. It's two citizens. One of whom hasn't lived here since he was a small child (child of Saudi nationals who happened to be born while parents were in the US. Yes, he's a citizen, but I bet he never thought of himself as an American until he found out that he could use that detail to get himself out of the pokey). The other sounds like he meets even an idiot's definition of traitor.

    2. Precedent was established in 1942 during WW II. Democratic president, even.

    -jon

    --

    Remember Amalek.

  4. Re:"terrorism" is being used as an excuse by kilgore_47 · · Score: 3, Informative

    People in Washington are just using terrorism as an excuse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with terrorism and existed long before 9/11. LLNL, for example, has been an irritation for the Bush administration, and that kind of government funded research doesn't fit too well into their philosophy anyway; that's why they like to play football with it.

    1. It's a typo. They're not getting shutdown.
    2. Defense Contractors don't fit into the Bush administration's philosophy? Wtf are you smoking?
    3. There is no step three.

    --
    ___
    The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
  5. Precedent was during a declared war by smiff · · Score: 4, Informative
    Precedent was established in 1942 during WW II.

    The USA-PATRIOT act specifically requires the Attorney General or President to declare someone an enemy combatant. One of the restrictions is that the person must not be a US citizen.

    The 1942 case involved persons who worked for an enemy that congress had declared war on. Congress has not declared war on Al Queda.

    To deny the civil rights of a certain class of people amounts to a Bill of Attainder. The constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder.

    All the protections in the constitution are worthless if they can be eroded with a simple accusation. Even if one supports military tribunals for enemies of the state, the state should be required to prove, in open court, that the defendent is indeed an enemy of the state. In the 1942 case, the defendents did not dispute that they took orders from the German High Command.

    Should you lose your right to a public jury trial if a member of Al Queda claims that you work for them? What burdon should the state have to meet before taking away someone's right to a public jury trial?