Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Should Cancel Plutonium Plant, Say Scientists

Posted by Soulskill on from the but-that-goes-against-our-rich-nucleocultural-traditions dept.

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Rachel Oswald reports that the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent science advocacy organization, says that the United States should cancel plans to build a multi-billion dollar plutonium research facility in New Mexico and criticizes Obama administration plans for nuclear facilities and weapons. They argue that the plans to build new fissile-material handling plants are unnecessarily ambitious given the expected future downward trajectory of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement plant (CMRR) building at Los Alamos would replace a Cold War-era site at a cost of $6 billion. It is intended to assist in ensuring new and existing plutonium pits are in working order absent a return by the country to nuclear-weapons testing. The 81-page UCS report, 'Making Smart Security Choices,' (PDF) says if the U.S. carries out limited reductions of its nuclear arsenal over the next-quarter century — as President Obama has said he would like to do — current facilities at Los Alamos can produce sufficient plutonium cores to maintain the warhead stockpile. The CMRR complex is designed to have the capacity to produce between 50 and 80 plutonium pits annually even though no more than 50 cores are needed yearly and Los Alamos currently has that production capability, says report co-author Lisbeth Gronlund. 'The idea that you would need to produce up to 80 [cores] is not warranted,' says Gronlund. 'We think it's time just to cancel the whole thing.'"

10 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. China and Russia continue to modernize.... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .... while the US, UK, and France haven't fielded new warheads or delivery systems since the 90s. Russia has deployed new ICBMs, a whole new class of SSBN, she just tested an "ICBM" that may well be a IRBM in disguise (running afoul of the INF in the process), and nobody is quite sure what China is up to with her nuclear arsenal. The latter bit is particularly troubling, at least with the Russians there's a diplomatic framework in place for each side to verify what the other has. The size of China's arsenal and her deployed delivery systems is a huge geopolitical question mark.

    The West needs to maintain a credible deterrence force; this means modern warheads and delivery systems. At the same time, we really ought to be making an effort to bring China into a disarmament and verification diplomatic framework, the kind we've had with the Russians for decades. It baffles me that none of our leaders talk about China when discussing nuclear weapons policy.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:China and Russia continue to modernize.... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Israel is a regional player with limited abilities to upend the global geopolitical balance that has existed since the 80s. Geography and population will ensure that this is always the case. Not so with China; Russia's current expenditures on WMDs and rumblings about leaving the INF are driven in part by questions about China's intentions and the scope of her nuclear capability. Do you see Russia withdrawing from decades old arms control treaties as a result of anything that happening in Tel Aviv? Not likely.....

      China needs to be brought into a modern arms control framework, preferably before a three sided Cold War breaks out. We don't need to "demand" it of her; it's simply a matter of geopolitical carrot and stick, the same as happened with the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80. The problem is that the existing framework either ignores China, or regards her as a smaller power, in the same league as the UK and France. She's not held to the same standards of transparency as the United States or Russia, and that really ought to worry the hell out of everyone.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:China and Russia continue to modernize.... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why confine the conversation to ICBMs? They are the least destabilizing nuclear weapons delivery system. China's growing stockpile of short and intermediate range missiles are far more worrisome. They directly threaten our friends in Asia (Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Singapore, etc.), the Russians, and even American soil (Guam and the Marianas)

      Russia has been making rumblings for a few years now about withdrawing from the INF treaty. A lot of analysts blame the US Missile Defense program for this, but there's a growing contingent that point the finger towards China's intermediate range forces:

      "More ominous still is that China's missile buildup could result in the INF's demise. Moscow has already threatened to pull out if China does not sign the treaty. And, with its tactical fighter bases and surface ships increasingly vulnerable, the United States also may have no choice but to abrogate the treaty and deploy mobile land-based missiles - a capability much more difficult for China to attack - to places such as Japan; this could become the only way to deter Chinese aggression. The end of the INF would mean a missile arms race involving four great nuclear powers - India, China, Russia and the United States. Without sustained attention to China's missile force this frightening scenario is becoming more plausible."

      China probably has about the same number of nuclear weapons as France or Britain

      The "probably" part is what's worrisome. China simply doesn't operate as transparently as the United States or Russia with regards to nuclear weapons. We know exactly how many weapons the Russians have, how many are currently deployed, where most of them are deployed, etc. Ditto for France and the UK. The Russians know the same about us. Each side has the legal right to send inspectors to the other to verify what they are being told. None of this framework applies to China.

      There doesn't seem to be any real necessity for a brand-new missile to replace the existing fleet other than as the existing hardware ages out

      There's a necessity for a replacement of the Ohio class, something the Russians and Chinese are already doing....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:China and Russia continue to modernize.... by nojayuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Ohios and their replacements are a platform, not a missile or a warhead. The new SSBNs will carry a Trident derivative, probably a slightly tweaked version of the D5 (as will the postulated replacement for the British SSBNs) and the warheads will be the same designs with the same yield and functionality as currently deployed because there is nothing to be gained in spending 50 billion dollars to develop and produce missiles and warheads that would be only fractionally better than what they replace.

      A the moment the Chinese have no usable SSBNs never mind the small number (three minimum, one on patrol, one working up, one being refitted and if possible one spare above that) needed to maintain a credible second-strike worldwide retaliatory capability all the other members of the Big Five possess.

      As for the capabilities of missile systems the Chinese see India and Russia as their most likely nuclear foes in any future shooting war; unlike the insular and isolated US such exchanges can and probably would be conducted with IRBMs and nuclear-capable cruise missiles hence their interest in developing such weapons and the lesser regard they have for ICBMs and SSBNs.

      None of the other Big Five nations or the adjunct non-NPT nations with proven nuclear weapons (Israel, India and Pakistan) allow outside inspection and verification of their warhead stocks; the START deal is purely between the two 800-lb gorillas in the nuclear destruction biz. Just because China is big doesn't mean it's on the same scale as the US and Russia; I'd worry more about India's nuclear weapons stocks as they face an existential threat from their nuclear rivals, Pakistan.

    4. Re:China and Russia continue to modernize.... by LavouraArcaica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      unlike Israel? what?
      Why do you think Iran is trying to get nukes in the first place?

  2. Not just for weapons by ArbitraryName · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought we needed to restart plutonium production for spacecraft RTGs?

  3. I don't get it by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What makes this "unnecessarily" ambitious rather than "necessarily" ambitious? Overwhelming nuclear force by a foe remains a means of defeating a MAD strategy. You can't counter that unless you have the capability to expand your own nuclear force in response.

  4. neutral? by onyxruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The union of concerned scientists is effectively a front for Greenpeace. They are rabidly anti-nuclear in any regard. It's a bit like saying your going to claim the Tea Party to be neutral on taxes.

  5. Re:Blech by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First comment I've seen noting what the UCS really is and where is said comment? 3/4 down the page. Sigh.

  6. Re:In The Meantime... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Different isotope, different production process, different quantity needs, etc."

    No, it's a byproduct of the production process.