DSB Report Warns of Uncertainty in U.S. Nuclear Capabilities
There is an urgent need to reach consensus on how to configure the future U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, says a new report (pdf) of the Defense Science Board (DSB).
“We are already late in addressing [stockpile] needs and the current pace of progress in defining, approving, and implementing the needed capabilities is not encouraging.”
The sources of the present urgency, the DSB report says, are several:
“We are behind on weapons surveillance, which is essential to continuing confidence in the reliability, safety, and security of weapons.”
“We are behind on dismantling unneeded weapons which adds to the security and safety concerns and burdens.”
“We have an inadequately defined and funded capability for replacement, over time, of aging weapons in the stockpile.”
In short, according to the DSB, “The current nuclear organization, management and programs do not provide for a nuclear weapons enterprise capable of meeting the nation’s minimum needs.”
The DSB proposes a series of recommendations that it says would help sustain the nuclear stockpile, transform the weapons production complex, and instigate needed organizational changes.
See Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on “Nuclear Capabilities,” unclassified Report Summary, December 2006.
An analysis of the new report by Hans Kristensen of FAS may be found on the Strategic Security blog here.
A deeper understanding of methane could help scientists better address these impacts – including potentially through methane removal.
While it is reasonable for governments to keep the most sensitive aspects of nuclear policies secret, the rights of their citizens to have access to general knowledge about these issues is equally valid so they may know about the consequences to themselves and their country.
Advancing the U.S. leadership in emerging biotechnology is a strategic imperative, one that will shape regional development within the U.S., economic competitiveness abroad, and our national security for decades to come.
Inconsistent metrics and opaque reporting make future AI power‑demand estimates extremely uncertain, leaving grid planners in the dark and climate targets on the line