DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Los Alamos and Labs » LIVERMORE LAB CAN’T DEFEND ITSELF; NUKE MATERIAL MAY GO

LIVERMORE LAB CAN’T DEFEND ITSELF; NUKE MATERIAL MAY GO

livermore_secy.JPGLong-time Defense Tech readers know that security at the country’s nuclear labs is hovering somewhere around Disneyland level. But the defenses at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory don’t even meet this Pirates of the Caribbean standard, according to the L.A. Times.
“Unlike the security forces at other weapons sites, Livermore’s personnel do not have certain high-powered weapons, door-breaching explosives or helicopters to defend the site,” the paper reports. The area where the lab keeps its nuclear material is about a quarter mile from a residential tract, and it “is packed into the dense Livermore complex, making it tougher to defend than remote facilities.“

“We have concluded, working with insiders, that Livermore cannot adequately protect its materials,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C., group that has been pressing the Energy Department to improve its security. “The only way to address the problem is to get those materials out of there.“
The group has asked Energy officials to eliminate the materials from Livermore and two sites in Idaho and to move plutonium to underground sites in Tennessee and South Carolina.
Brian said she met with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on Jan. 22 to recommend that the department move the Livermore materials to the Nevada Test Site’s defense assembly facility, an underground lab located in a remote desert. “He seemed genuinely concerned and committed to fixing the problem,” she said.
Energy spokesman Bryan Wilkes acknowledged Monday that the department was looking at consolidating or removing nuclear materials at a number of sites. Earlier this year, it decided to remove the materials from TA-18, a weapons site at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.


THERE’S MORE: “Two Chinese diplomats, away from their Los Angeles consulate improperly, recently sped their vehicle past a Los Alamos National Laboratory guard post near classified facilities in what U.S. officials think was an intelligence mission,” according to the Washington Times.
It’s where the diplomats were stopped at the lab that’s particularly unnerving. Pajarito Road looks down onto canyons where TA-18 and TA-55 — two of Los Alamos’ most sensitive nuclear facilities — are located. Watchdog groups have long warned that Pajarito would be the ideal place to launch an attack on the lab. And it has been frequently closed to the public since 9/11.
AND MORE: A House Committee on Government Reform’s subcommittee is holding hearings today on whether the Energy Department can meet the security requirements at its labs. Hint: no.

Share |

April 27th, 2004 | Los Alamos and Labs | Comments Off Both comments and pings are currently closed.

« « ARMY PULLS PLUG ON HYBRID HUMMERS | ALL-OUT WAR RETURNS TO IRAQ » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments are closed.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up? (Updated)
    Recent Comments
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      The Air Force has got it backwards again. Here it...
      gmanaz
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      Damn it! I thought this hole tanker BS was over with...
      Thunder350
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      my bad… i misread your second to last...
      Project Thor
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      excuse me… were you reading what i...
      Project Thor
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
      Welfare and warfare are necessary. The argument on...
      calw
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
      Get out of wheeled CrapMobiles and get off the roads...
      IEDDEFEAT
    • And, the Vertical Landing
      Nope. Crash a Harrier every other flight and it would still be...
      Hx2
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      That's a misleading response – the issue...
      Why
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      There are good off the shelf platforms, the...
      STemplar
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      The A-10 can't hang around for extended...
      Project Thor
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage