Nuclear security: Mission failure
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has mismanaged its mission to secure U.S. nuclear stockpiles and classified research sites so badly that renaming it the National Nuclear Insecurity Administration hardly would be an exaggeration.
A new Government Accountability Office report traces the agency's woes to its 2009 attempt “to reform its security measures in a bid to cut costs of about $53 million,” according to The Washington Free Beacon. Allowing independent security contractors “greater authority,” the agency actually “increased security risks and reduced security performance,” the GAO says.
Cuts in “critical protective force posts and patrols” likely contributed to “three trespassers (gaining) access to the protected area directly adjacent to one of the nation's most critically important nuclear weapon-related facilities” in Tennessee in 2012. And since then, NNSA officials admit, its security policy has been “chaotic” and “dysfunctional,” with false starts toward developing a clear security plan and implementation strategy, procedures varying among facilities, inspections being scaled back and reliance on contractors increasing.
The premise that no savings can justify inadequate U.S. nuclear-weapons security should have been self-evident to the NNSA but apparently wasn't. Thus, all necessary steps now must be taken to reverse the agency's bungling — so that America won't shoot itself in the foot this way again.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Canary in a coal mine’: The SSDI dilemma
- Mon-Yough Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- A school choice victory: Follow the child
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- Open contract negotiations: Let the sunshine in
- Silencing whistle-blowers
- The Export-Import Bank: Bury this zombie once and for all
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?