Latest news with #NationalNuclearSecurityAdministration
Miami Herald
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
US completes new nuclear bomb year ahead of schedule
By Dean Murray The United States has completed its new nuclear bomb, nearly a year ahead of schedule. The B61-13 weapon features a maximum yield of 360 kilotons - 24 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The first unit was unveiled on Monday (May 19) in Amarillo, Texas, by U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. He said: "Modernising America's nuclear stockpile is essential to delivering President Trump's peace through strength agenda. "The remarkable speed of the B61-13's production is a testament to the ingenuity of our scientists and engineers and the urgency we face to fortify deterrence in a volatile new age. "This achievement signals American strength to our adversaries and allies alike." The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) said: "The B61-13 will provide the President with additional nuclear options against certain harder and large-area military targets; separately, the Department of Defense will coordinate with NNSA to complete and implement a comprehensive strategy for the defeat of hard and deeply buried targets." The B61-13 is one of the most rapidly developed and fielded weapons since the Cold War. The NNSA allocated $92 million over four years for development, with original production expected to begin in fiscal year 2026. The bomb will be deployable by strategic aircraft such as the upcoming B-21 Raider stealth bomber and possibly the retiring B-2 Spirit. The post US completes new nuclear bomb year ahead of schedule appeared first on Talker. Copyright Talker News. All Rights Reserved.
Yahoo
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Musk aides got accounts on classified system with US nuclear secrets: sources
WASHINGTON − Luke Farritor and Adam Ramada, two Elon Musk aides who worked under his Department of Government Efficiency, have accounts on a sensitive National Nuclear Security Administration network holding tightly guarded information about the design and vulnerabilities of U.S. nuclear weapons, according to two people with knowledge of their access. Farritor's and Ramada's names are listed on a sensitive network at the agency, which oversees the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons, the sources told USA TODAY. They spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation. Neither of the two Musk aides − a former SpaceX intern and a Miami investor − appears to have a background in nuclear weapons. More: Elon Musk talks Lincoln Bedroom stays, late-night ice cream as he steps back from DOGE More: Price of US nuclear weapons jumps 25% to nearly $1 trillion by 2034, budget office says Ben Dietderich, chief spokesperson for the Department of Energy, said DOGE aides had never had access to the system. Farritor and Ramada's accounts on the classified system were first reported by NPR. Users need to have a top-secret security clearance of the highest level possible at the Energy Department to access the network, according to agency rules for handling classified information. The network transmits highly classified nuclear information, including how nuclear weapons are designed and function, and vulnerabilities they may have. Some information on the server could be used to help build a "dirty bomb" – a conventional bomb loaded with radioactive material. More: Exclusive: DOGE staffer, 'Big Balls', provided tech support to cybercrime ring, records show The presence of the two aides' names in the network does not mean they have access to everything it contains – users still need to be granted access to specific folders within it, the sources said. "This is a highly sensitive agency, maybe one of the most sensitive in the entire government," said Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow the Brookings Institution. "There are security concerns in every piece of the government due to how DOGE came in and took over." The Trump administration – with Musk and his aides as the tip of the spear – have roiled the federal government with mass layoffs and demands for access to sensitive information at agencies including the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and the National Labor Relations Board. The DOGE push for access to sensitive information "is a bigger story than the firing of civil servants because it endangers all Americans," said Kamarck, who led an initiative that shrunk the federal government by 400,000 jobs during the Clinton administration. More: Trump nukes nominee questioned on DOGE cuts, nuclear weapons testing Amid the purge, the Trump administration laid off more than 300 probationary NNSA employees, only to backpedal and bring almost all of them back days later. Email addresses under the names of the two Musk aides appeared at other agencies months ago, as DOGE made a sweeping effort to dismantle much of the federal government. More: How Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has dominated Trump's agenda Farritor, a 23-year-old former SpaceX intern and member of a fellowship for college dropouts created by tech billionaire Peter Thiel, was also given access to high-level systems at the U.S. Agency for International Development in early February, according to the New York Times. He was listed as the "executive engineer" in the secretary of Health and Human Services' office, the Times also reported. The Trump administration later dismantled USAID and fired almost all of its employees. Ramada is a former Miami venture capitalist. He, Farritor and Ryan Riedel, recently listed as a SpaceX employee, were installed at the Department of Energy, which encompasses the NNSA, in February, Politico reported. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: DOGE staff got accounts on system holding nuclear secrets
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lapsed federal funds threaten monitoring at NM's national labs
Rick Shean, who leads the Environmental Protection Division for the New Mexico Environment Department, pictured above testifying before the Radiation and Hazardous Waste interim committee on Aug. 21, 2023. (Danielle Prokop / Source New Mexico) According to New Mexico officials, for the last three years, the National Nuclear Security Administration has failed to pay its share toward monitoring the environment around federal installations in the state. Unless the federal government makes up that funding, Source has learned, independent monitoring of air, water and ecology around Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs could stop at the end of the month. 'My concern is that the state of New Mexico and our citizens will not have an independent review of the impacts the labs are having,' New Mexico Environment Department Resource Protection Division Director Rick Shean told Source NM. 'Without this funding, going forward we're not going to be able to sample and monitor the environment for ourselves in order to ensure that the data that they're collecting is true.' NMED has operated water, air and environmental monitoring projects at LANL and Sandia since 1990, and later included the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad. 'We're verifying they're not impacting the environment and public health around their facilities,' Shean said. The bureau does not regulate the sites but does release data to the public on its findings. The work is funded by a U.S. Department of Energy grant, which was developed as part of an agreement between the state and federal government. Previously, one office in the Department of Energy paid for the grant funding the oversight bureau at NMED. In recent reshuffling at the federal level, the National Nuclear Security Administration was assigned to foot part of the bill. Currently, NMED's Department of Energy Oversight Bureau has 16 employees and a budget of $4.3 million. The NNSA has failed to pay its share for the past three years, Shean said. For this year, that amounts to a $750,000 gap, approximately 17% of the budget for the state oversight program. Without the funding, NMED would have to stop the current monitoring work at the national laboratories on May 30, Shean said. WIPP monitoring would still continue. Compounding the missing funding, Shean says new federal projects are putting more strain on existing employees. For instance, Shean noted LANL's new plan to start venting pent up barrels of tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, possibly in June, which would increase the monitoring workload for the oversight bureau. Shean said he received assurances on May 9 after a meeting with NNSA officials, that federal funds would be available by May 16. In an emailed statement, the NNSA said it issued a partial payment to NMED, but did not disclose the amount. 'NNSA will continue to incrementally fund its portion of the funds for the remainder of FY 2025,' the statement said. The statement concluded by saying the agency would pay NMED by the close of the fiscal year. It's unclear if that indicates the federal fiscal year (in September) or New Mexico's fiscal year, which ends in June. NMED spokesperson Drew Goretzka confirmed to Source NM that NNSA sent a partial payment to the agency but said the NNSA statement to Source does not reflect previous commitments the federal government made. Source has a pending request for more specifics on the amount of the payment that was made. 'That timeline does not line up with what they presented to us in meetings in which they are going to deliver the funds by this Friday, May 16,' Goretzka said in a phone call. 'We're still under the impression they'll deliver the funds by then.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
For nuclear deterrence, US policymakers must rely on facts, not hype
Washington finds itself in another season of hearings related to nuclear weapons, as Congressional leaders consider approving new defense appointees, negotiate the federal budget and hold annual hearings with military leaders. Such hearings are important, especially from a strategic perspective. Maintaining deterrence requires clear-eyed assessments of our own nuclear and conventional weapons, their doctrines for use, the health of the enterprise that operates them and the trade-offs inherent in all defense investments. This challenging work requires that policymakers plan against facts and best judgments, and avoid being distracted by misleading claims regarding the U.S. nuclear arsenal and those of other nations. Three chief narrative claims threaten to send Washington down costly, inefficient and indeed risky policy paths today. The first theme, which seemingly reemerges each year, is that U.S. nuclear weapons are ancient, and that this necessitates urgent action. This is true — Many U.S. nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are quite old. In these critical debates, this is sometimes portrayed as a new realization, and a problem for which the U.S. isn't yet pursuing solutions. In fact, this is a long-recognized challenge that the nation has been tackling with concerted action for years. At sites in Texas, Missouri, New Mexico, California and elsewhere, scientists, technicians and manufacturers are executing an expansive modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad, to the tune of at least $1.7 trillion. The nation has been pursuing these plans for many years — long enough, in fact, that the real needs and costs of nuclear modernization become clearer each year. Second, policymakers will hear a rising chorus claiming that the U.S. does not have tactical nuclear weapons — or that we need even more. Both assertions are misleading, and several facts must remain central to any renewed policy debate on this subject. Just this January, the National Nuclear Security Administration announced that production is complete for upgraded B61-12 nuclear gravity bombs, which have the ability to be used with heightened precision and lower explosive yields, enabling tactical utility. The head of the agency publicly declared that they are 'fully forward deployed.' That's not all. During the first Trump administration, the U.S. quickly developed and fielded a low-yield variant of submarine-launched Trident II missiles. Additionally, development and testing continue for a new long-range standoff nuclear air-launched cruise missile, with the aim of it becoming operable by 2030. Washington pursued each of these nuclear capabilities with scenarios in mind that included adversaries using tactical nuclear weapons in conflict, and the need for the nation to have multiple types of response options available. The U.S. had — and chose to reduce — tactical nuclear weapons in the past, decisions that stemmed from deep military analysis, as well as knowledge of the operational, budgetary and weapons-capability trade-offs the military faced. These decisions also tied to the emergence and improvement of other technologies, including stealth, precision conventional weapons and the growth centrality of space in defense strategy and operations. These factors are only growing in importance in considering what nuclear capabilities are necessary for effective deterrence. Third, making hard decisions regarding U.S. investments toward deterrence requires the most precise accounting of the nuclear capabilities of countries like China and Russia that we can achieve — and measured consideration of how to handle any knowledge gaps we have. For example, some experts portray as a proven fact that China has nuclear weapons that are at serious risk of being fielded as tactical, battlefield weapons in conflict. This is not a settled fact, and it is a matter of hot debate. China has long avoided developing some types of nuclear weapons, such as those delivered by tactical cruise missiles. Its doctrine historically considered nuclear weapons to be solely strategic, and held firm to the concept that use of nuclear weapons was beyond the normal threshold for acceptable combat. And indeed, some of its recent actions raise concerns about whether the nation's leaders have altered course. Still, no one in the U.S. concretely knows the answer to this or other questions about China's nuclear capabilities and concepts of use. It will likely take the type of dialogues that President Trump has proposed, as well as sustained technical and political engagement at all levels, to gain clarity. Until that happens, in the name of maintaining deterrence, policymakers should be careful to discern what we know and what remains unclear in our knowledge of these nations' nuclear capabilities. Our nation's leaders face tough questions about how to keep deterrence stable and effective in an extraordinarily complex security environment. It will indeed require modernizing parts of the nuclear arsenal. However, the more-is-better style of arms racing that the U.S. and Soviet Union pursued in the Cold War is not a fit for modern strategy. Initiating plans for nuclear weapons that exceed our capacity to build or maintain them does nothing to enhance deterrence and may risk strategic miscommunication. With this in mind, the nation can also benefit from the fact that we stand at a moment of strong, bipartisan agreement on numerous policy paths that aim to keep deterrence as effective as possible. For example, there is broad agreement that the U.S. should pursue defense acquisition reform and seek to out-innovate adversarial nations, both subjects for which Trump recently signed executive orders. The nation's nuclear weapons plans and policies should not be exempt from these important pursuits or the trade-offs they will entail. Second, there is significant agreement that the U.S. needs to invest more in its science, technology and industrial base that keeps the nuclear deterrent strong and secure. This must be adequately reflected in forthcoming budgets that support the national laboratories, the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration and other relevant infrastructure. Third, most experts agree on the need to be creative in how we pursue deterrence, across nuclear and non-nuclear domains. Though some experts focus heavily on building more nuclear weapons as the primary answer, many of us agree that we should first maximize other approaches to complicating the decision-making of adversaries in ways that keep them back from the nuclear brink. This should include creative approaches to signaling U.S. capabilities and determination (including technical and strategic capabilities other than weapons systems), sharp messaging from senior leaders, and showcasing dedication to long-standing military alliances. While there is much work to do, we are already fifteen years into the implementation of a bipartisan program of record for a U.S. nuclear arsenal that is safe, secure and effective. By pursuing that program and the priorities noted above, our deterrent will remain second to none. Hon. Andy Weber is a senior fellow at the Council on Strategic Risks and previously served as assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs. Christine Parthemore is the CEO of the Council on Strategic Risks and previously served at the Pentagon.
USA Today
25-04-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Price of US nuclear weapons jumps 25% to nearly $1 trillion by 2034, budget office says
Price of US nuclear weapons jumps 25% to nearly $1 trillion by 2034, budget office says The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's estimate does not include recently discovered cost overruns in the Sentinel missile project. Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump says US wants direct' with Iran in nuke talks President Donald Trump says the U.S. wants to deal with Iran "directly" to negotiate a deal over nuclear weapons. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that operating, sustaining, and modernizing U.S. nuclear weapons will cost $946 billion between 2025 and 2034. The projection is 25%, or $190 billion, higher than the CBO's last 10-year cost estimate. The price to maintain and modernize America's nuclear weapons continues to rise, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. According to the April 24 report, U.S. taxpayers will pay approximately $946 billion over the next decade to sustain, operate, and modernize the country's nuclear weapons; its fleet of bombers, submarines and missiles designed to deliver the weapons; and related support and production infrastructure. The projection is 25% − or $190 billion − higher than the CBO's last ten-year cost estimate, which covered 2023 to 2032. More than half of the increase is due to cost overruns, the CBO said. The office pointed to the new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile project as a major driver of the jump, in addition to smaller increases in other programs and weapons production facilities run by the National Nuclear Security Administration. Advocates for fewer nuclear weapons pointed to the estimate as a warning about the potential consequences of allowing arms control agreements to quietly expire. But supporters of nuclear modernization contend the U.S. needs an updated arsenal to compete with Russia and China on an increasingly unstable world stage. In a statement, Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball argued the "skyrocketing costs" of the nuclear arsenal are likely to "go even higher." He highlighted that the CBO estimate does not fully account for recently assessed cost increases to the Sentinel program; a mandatory review in 2024 revealed an 81% increase in the program's price tag. Kimball said the administration of President Donald Trump should engage China on arms control and take action to maintain nuclear weapons deployment limits set by the New START treaty with Russia, which expires in early 2026. "Failure to do so will undermine U.S. and global security and could mean that more taxpayer dollars are wasted on weapons of mass destruction rather than programs that meet real human needs," he argued. The CBO bases its estimates on agency budget proposals and accounts for slight cost overruns that align with an agency's historical patterns. The nuclear arsenal and its associated costs represent a growing share of the nation's defense budget, which could soon hit $1 trillion a year. The CBO estimates nukes will account for 8.4% of national defense spending between 2025 and 2034, a significant increase compared with 3.9% in the 2014 defense budget. If you have news tips related to the U.S. nuclear arsenal, please contact Davis Winkie via email at dwinkie@ or via the Signal encrypted messaging app at 770-539-3257. Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
