Yesterday's cautiously worded National Nuclear Security Administration response to the new JASON report has a nuance to it that I didn't quite capture accurately in my story in this morning's newspaper.

The JASONs, as I reported, conclude that the current stockpile stewardship program is working well, and that there is no need to design new weapons to ensure the long term reliability of the U.S. stockpile. NNSA in principle seems to like the report, but with a caveat that has some of us scratching our heads:

While we endorse the recommendations and consider them well-aligned with NNSA's long-term stockpile management strategy, certain findings in the unclassified Executive Summary convey a different perspective on key findings when viewed without the context of the full classified report.  The full report addresses them comprehensively and validates our basic scientific approach to warhead life extension programs, specifically our commitment to evaluating each weapon system on a case-by-case basis and applying the best technological approach from a spectrum of options. (emphasis added)

I wrote in my story that NNSA "issued a statement endorsing the study's findings." That is not correct. They endorses the report's recommendations, a number of specific steps regarding improvements in the weapons science and surveillance programs the panel thought would be useful in extending the life of existing weapons.

While the details over the disagreement over findings remains classified, it appears to relate to an assertion that the agency does not agree with the unclassified summary of the group's work included in the publicly released version of the report. I'm told the full report, which is classified, runs to more than 100 pages. The apparent difference between NNSA and the JASON's involves the following unclassified summary: "JASON finds no evidence that accumulation of changes incurred from aging and LEPs have increased risk to certification of today's deployed nuclear warheads." The NNSA seems to be saying that the full classified version tells a somewhat different story. But how different and in what ways?

(Report executive summary, courtesy Jeffrey Lewis)

Click to Comment

New Mexico's two senators today introduced legislation intended to smooth the way for a new generation of small nuclear power reactors.

Click to Comment

Some reading from around the 'Net:

• Drought worsening in Arizona. (Where's that El Nino rain?)
• El Nino means something different in Latin America, where drought is rapidly spreading.
• The International Energy Agency says decarbonized energy cannot keep up with rising global demand.
• Climate change skeptics have a field day picking through purloined emails from British climate research group. Climate Audit, Watts.

Click to Comment

Some things I've been reading:

• Given recent discussions about the unusually cold October in the United States, a global perspective is perhaps helpful. (MT has the map.)
• From Australia, a remarkable fire warning: "This week, parts of South Australia found themselves under the nation's first-ever warning of "catastrophic" fire danger. The new topmost category--ranking above "severe" and "extreme" risk--was introduced by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in the aftermath of Black Saturday (7 February 2009)."
• At Gambler's House, a great discussion about Keith Kloor's Archaeology magazine piece on Chaco and Navajo ancestry questions.
• Ben Hale on the behavioral foundations of environmental action.
• The ubiquitous Kloor on increasing attention to climate change among the national security establishment.

Click to Comment

A long-awaited report requested by Congress concludes there is no need for new nuclear warhead designs to maintain confidence in the reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

Click to Comment