CIAO DATE: 07/02

Defense Conversion and the Future of the National Nuclear Weapons Laboratories

Abstract

The end of the Cold War has altered dramatically the context in which the national nuclear laboratories operate. For nearly fifty years, the three laboratories-Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratory-have had as their prime responsibility the design and testing of the nation's nuclear weapons. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the planned reduction in the nuclear arsenals on both sides, and the fall in spending for national defense, the laboratories face a redefinition of their mission and smaller budgets. The nuclear threat has not disappeared, but it no longer provides a rationale for the size and scope of defense activities that were supported at the laboratories in the past.

Is there a new mission for the laboratories that would justify the national investment in them? Over the years the laboratories have built up great technical capabilities in their physical facilities and highly trained workforce. Can their scientific and technical resources be applied to strengthening the technology base of the civilian economy and improving U.S. competitiveness in international markets? What other missions might be well-served by the laboratories- capa-bilities?

With their entrenched bureaucracies and inexperience in dealing with the commercial world, the laboratories may not be well suited for the types of economic problems that have risen to the top of the policy agenda. And whereas they had an undisputed monopoly in the design and development of nuclear weapons, other organizations, governmental and private, are competing for the new economic tasks. In short, there is no lack of national challenges, but it is not clear whether the laboratories' resources can be deployed to address them effectively.

The Peace Studies Program of Cornell University sponsored a workshop in Ithaca on October 1-2, 1993 to discuss these issues. Participants came from all three national laboratories, Cornell and other universities, government agencies and other Washington-based organizations. The workshop was organized into three sessions that focused on defining the nuclear mission, planning for conversion, and technology transfer issues. Background papers were prepared by Cornell authors and discussed by panels of outside experts, followed by general discussion. Three Cornell graduate students served as rapporteurs: Charles Nakhleh (Session I), Rachel Weber (Session II), and Anand Prakash (Session III).

Over the course of a day and a half, many issues were aired and debated, and although we did not seek to reach consensus, convergence around certain points did occur. It was generally agreed that an important, albeit smaller, nuclear weapons mission remained for the laboratories; that although there are national problems-such as energy security or the environment-which the laboratories are equipped to address, the political will to provide large-scale funding for them may not exist; and that current technology transfer activities, while beneficial in the short-run, will not supply a long-run raison dietre for the laboratories. On other issues there was less agreement, but the discussion throughout was lively and informative.

This Occasional Paper brings together the background papers with the summaries of the panel presentations and open discussion prepared by our rapporteurs. We have also included as Appendix A a short essay by Hans Bethe on the subject of conversion of the national laboratories that grew out of remarks that he made at the workshop; an edited version of this essay was pub-lished on the op-ed page of the New York Times on December 6, 1993. The program for the workshop and a list of participants can be found in Appendix B.

We want to thank all the participants for their thoughtful contributions to the workshop discussion. We also owe thanks to the rapporteurs, and to Elaine Scott and Sandra Kisner of the Peace Studies Program's staff, whose efficient and cheerful help made the workshop possible. Funding for the workshop came from program funds of the Peace Studies Program.

Full PDF article, 77 Pages, 7260kB