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.'"

34 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 nojayuk · · Score: 4, Informative

      The USAF test-fired one or more missiles recently, it caused a delay for the SpaceX Falcon launch from Vandenberg last month. The missiles in stock will do the job if called upon. 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. Any new models would have the same basic capabilities as the older Minuteman III designs so other than fitting them with larger tailfins and spending a lot of money with defence contractors why bother?

      The US has very good warheads; over half of all nuclear weapons tests since 1945 have been carried out by the US and there really isn't much room for improvement or a real need to develop new warhead designs. The focus is on maintaining the existing arsenal in a working condition which is what the new Pu facility mentioned in the article is intended to do from what I understand.

      As for China its long-range missiles are 1970s technology, liquid-fuelled multistage designs which are cumbersome and vulnerable to pre-emptive attack. They have no SSBN capabilities despite spending a lot of money and effort in trying to develop that capability and they have no long-range bomber force either. China probably has about the same number of nuclear weapons as France or Britain, less than a tenth of the arsenal the US or Russia hold. Bringing them into a START process would be pointless - what counterbalancing incentive could the US offer to the Chinese to get them to reduce their current holdings from 250 warheads down to, say, 100? The US and Russia can negotiate as equals as they have similar stockpiles, the Chinese are a second-rate nuclear force in that regard.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. Re:China and Russia continue to modernize.... by nojayuk · · Score: 2

      Whatever SSBN platform is built it will be designed around the venerable Trident D5, not a new missile and that D5 will carry the same sort of warhead that the current Ohios carry. Same with the British deterrent where the warheads are not being upgraded but simply maintained. I'm not sure what the French are doing with their own boomers.

      As for the Minuteman being outclassed by modern Russian ICBMs, so what if that's true? The Minuteman III is a perfectly capable launch vehicle today and tomorrow. What would really be a problem for the US would be if the Russians started working on a Strategic Missile Defence to, say, defend themselves against the terrifying existential threat North Korean nuclear weapons pose. Scary!

      China shares a border with two nuclear-weapons states, India and Russia. It has fought brushfire wars with both of them within the last century and its nuclear weapons development programmes tend towards confronting those short-range threats. The US sits in perfect isolation thousands of miles from any real threats (who cares about Alaska...) so its SLBM and ICBM fleets are its main deterrent force. I'm not sure that the US has any IRBM or nuclear-armed cruise missiles left in deployment.

    6. Re:China and Russia continue to modernize.... by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      China's arsenal is small, that's why it isn't discussed much. You confuse warheads and delivery systems. What new warheads are there? What difference would a "new" warhead design make? none, that's what. We don't need to make any new warheads, we have plenty and they are maintained.

    7. 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?

    8. Re:China and Russia continue to modernize.... by dbIII · · Score: 2

      China has just built their first aircraft carrier. In terms of international military reach they really are a smaller power not even in the league as the UK and France. It's not 1950 any more and their military is not designed to operate against equivalent forces.

    9. Re:China and Russia continue to modernize.... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Iran and Israel were allies prior to the Islamic revolution in Iran. It was Iran, newly governed by Islamic extremists, that declared Israel to be an enemy that they want to destroy.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  2. Not just for weapons by ArbitraryName · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Not just for weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong isotope. Nukes need Pu-239, RTGs use Pu-238, and the manufacturing processes are different.

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

      While there is an easier way to specifically produce Pu-238, it is a byproduct of Pu-239 production.

  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.

    1. Re:I don't get it by ThatAblaze · · Score: 2

      That would be the US's cyber weapons platform. If any other countries try to build a nuclear weapons stockpile, they end up having to shut down their facilities due to all the viruses. This is one of the few cases in which weakening the other side really is a more viable and ecological strategy than building up your own strength.

    2. Re:I don't get it by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      If we simply stopped with the disarming there would be little need for expensive new technology

      Nuclear materials have a half-life.... you can't take an unmaintained plutonium pit from the 1980s and expect it to function as designed thirty years later. Contamination from decay products will yield unpredictable results, ranging from a fissile (weapon fails to reach nuclear yield) to a significant increase in power (Castle Bravo is a good example)

      The only way to control for this is to conduct weapons testing (a geopolitical non-starter) or to continue to produce new fissile materials with known quantities. Computer modeling can offset the need for testing to a certain extent but at the end of the day the only way to be certain that a weapon will work as designed is to test it and/or modernize the materials contained therein.

      --
      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:I don't get it by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Contamination from decay products will yield unpredictable results, ranging from a fissile (weapon fails to reach nuclear yield) to a significant increase in power

      "fissile" = capable of undergoing fission.

      "fizzle" = didn't go boom when we tried to make it undergo fission.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:I don't get it by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      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.

      Right, and we already have that capability. Thus, the new facility is unnecessary.

      As an aside, we are signatories of the NPT. We can hardly go around beating other countries over head for violating the treaty when we ourselves are violating our obligations under it. If we don't want new nuclear weapons being developed by previously non-nuclear nations, or nuclear nations giving nukes to others, it behooves us to live up to our obligations under the same treaty to reduce our own nuclear arsenal. If we're not planning on reducing our arsenal anymore, then we're already in violation of the treaty, so we might as well stop complaining when our enemies start developing their own weapons. The NPT is really the only thing that gives us any right to complain about other nations developing nuclear weapons. In the absence of such an agreement, they have as much right to them as we do. Our mutual agreement to reduce and disarm in return for them not developing their own is the only leg we've got to stand on here if we're to have any say on this issue.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    5. Re:I don't get it by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      ranging from a fissile (weapon fails to reach nuclear yield

      I think you meant "fizzle."

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:I don't get it by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 2

      OK, feeding a troll here, but this tired misinformation's still making the rounds, and someone's gotta fight it, so here goes...

      Don't forget that plutonium 239 has a half life of over 24,000 years and is lethal in minute quantities at only brief exposure time.

      Uh, no. It's not.

      Remember, kids, long half-life means decay events are rare, meaning low cancer risk.

      Any single radioisotope can be either highly radioactive or last for thousands of years; both at once is impossible. (Nuclear waste, of course, contains various isotopes of both sorts, and some in the middle -- this complicates fuel reprocessing and cleanup of shutdown or failed reactors, as you have to contain it, wait a few years for the short-half-life stuff to decompose, then deal with the long-half-life stuff.)

    7. Re:I don't get it by khallow · · Score: 2

      Anyone who has studied the history of intelligence in the arms race would know that initial reports on Soviet capabilities were talked up so the departments could get budget.

      So you wouldn't be interested to know that CIA estimates of USSR nuclear forces fell short throughout the 70s? That's not much of a "talk up".

  4. Dual-use for scientific stockpile replenishment? by Astrophysician · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What about using this to make scientific-grade plutonium for ourselves? There has been some news lately that the US has only a few dozen kilograms of non-weapons-grade plutonium left, putting the future of NASA's deep-space exploration program. If we had access to a dependable supplies, we might be able to really think about missions to Europa, Enceladus, and other places in the solar system where life may exist.

  5. In The Meantime... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

    All the while, NASA's Plutonium shortage is threatening the future of deep space exploration.

    1. Re:In The Meantime... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    2. 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.

  6. Blech by Jiro · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Union of Concerned Scientists includes some scientists, but is an anti-nuclear political organization. This headline is like saying "Teenagers have unhealthy fantasies playing D&D, say mothers" amd omitting from the headline that "mothers" really refers to "Mothers Against Dungeons and Dragons".

    1. 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.

    2. Re:Blech by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

      This exactly.

      Can we please stop using the term "scientists" in headlines? Anybody can call themselves a scientist (whether or not they are a competent one,) and scientists usually work for a particular organization - name that organization instead.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    3. Re:Blech by Mendenhall · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Union of Concerned Scientists includes some scientists, but is an anti-nuclear political organization. This headline is like saying "Teenagers have unhealthy fantasies playing D&D, say mothers" amd omitting from the headline that "mothers" really refers to "Mothers Against Dungeons and Dragons".

      This is not even close to correct about the policies of UCS. See:

      http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/
      and
      http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-and-our-energy-choices/nuclear-power-and-global-warming/house-testimony-on-nuclear.html

      They are very strongly looking at nuclear safety issues, but specifically are neither pro-or-con on nuclear power itself. The organization does a great deal of research into all matters related to energy and safety and sustainability issues. They are well aware of the carbon-free nature of nuclear power, and that if it would be managed safely, it could be highly beneficial.

  7. Givernment doesn't care by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What no one seems to get is that no one in federal government(*) cares what's right for society, for the people, or even for their own survival.

    The purpose of government is to siphon funds away from individuals and give it to corporations. That's the length and breadth of it, there are no other considerations.

    The purpose of airport security is to give money to scanner companies. (Oh, these scanners don't work? We'll throw them out and purchase your newer model.) The purpose of Obamacare is to give money to insurance agencies. The purpose of Obamaphone is to give money to the phone companies, the purpose of military spending is to give money to military contractors, and the purpose of the war on drugs is to give money to private prisons.

    Every time one of these "this is the right move, but the government is doing the opposite" articles come up (one or two a day, it seems) it's framed in terms of an isolated, poor choice within a sea of government actions that are generally benevolent to the population and make our life better.

    It's not an isolated incident, everything the federal government does has one purpose and makes sense within that framework. Occasionally it also benefits the people, but that's more happenstance than plan. It's the "random guess is occasionally correct" principle.

    Federal government is a runaway train that's going to crash and burn, taking the country down with it. We can let this happen, or we can curtail it beforehand. Either way works, but fixing it beforehand would seem a better plan.

    *Note: I'm making a distinction between federal and state government. Most of the federal government could disappear without negative impact on the people. And yes, I said "most".

  8. 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.

  9. UCS are environmentalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Thirty seconds worth of Googling shows that the Union of Concerned Scientists is an environmental business, like Greenpeace, not "an independent science advocacy organization." Is it really a news story than a bunch of environmentalists are anti-nuke?

  10. Re:Blech... MADD by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Funny

    They're the same people. It says so in my Players Handbook.

  11. Scientists against science? by guruevi · · Score: 2

    We are having a huge shortage of several forms of plutonium and some of the other byproducts of nuclear fission (helium for example) in several of our scientific fields. Most of the cold-war era plants have shut down because we don't want any more weapons nor the risk of clean nuclear energy from the 70s, we'd rather set back medical imaging and energy production back a century than have safe -BUT NUCULAR- (and 50 years more progressive than the current average nuclear plant) energy production in our backyard.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com