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.
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.