Defense Science Board Report on Nuclear Capabilities

by CKR

The Defense Science Board has published its report on nuclear capabilities. The Federation of American Scientists are commenting on it here, here, and here.

I'm working on a post that is taking more time than I had intended, also on nuclear weapons, so I won't be able to comment in detail on the DSB report for a few days at least.

When Los Alamos started having troubles defining its direction in the 1970s, it seemed obvious to me that those troubles wouldn't be alleviated until the country defined its need for nuclear weapons more carefully. That was about the time we were beginning to realize that multiplying our nuclear capability, even against the Soviets, didn't entirely make sense.

When the Soviet Union dissolved, it seemed like the need for a reconsideration of US nuclear capability would be obvious, but fifteen years later, we still have our missiles targeted and ready to destroy Soviet, er, Russian cities, and vice versa. We also can't build any new nukes because Rocky Flats closed down because of its environmental liabilities to Denver and the suburbs growing around it.

And now that we know that terrorists might want nuclear weapons, you might think that our nuclear capability might be reconsidered.

From what the FAS blogs say, it looks like this report isn't that reconsideration.

If the United States wants to continue producing nuclear weapons, it must build some new facilities. Public scrutiny of the potential environmental liabilities and the enormous cost of the facilities will slow down any building, perhaps scuttle it. And that may be just as well until we figure out exactly what kind of nuclear power we want to be.