From Wikipedia:
The United States National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is part of the United States Department of Energy. It works to improve national security through the military application of nuclear energy. The NNSA also maintains and improves the safety, reliability, and performance of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile, including the ability to design, produce, and test, in order to meet national security requirements.
Basically these are the guys that go in to countries and obtain the most dangerous material in the world. The Peace SEALS, as it were.
The National Nuclear Security Administrations was created by Congressional action in 1999,[2] in the wake of the Wen Ho Lee spy scandal and other allegations that lax administration by the Department of Energy had resulted in the loss of U.S. nuclear secrets to China.[3] Originally proposed to be an independent agency, NNSA gained the reluctant support of the Clinton Administration only after it was instead chartered as a sub-agency within the Department of Energy, to be headed by an Administrator reporting to the Secretary of Energy.[4] The first NNSA Administrator appointed was Air Force General (and CIA Deputy Directory) John A. Gordon.[5]
NNSA has four missions with regard to National Security:
- To manage the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.
- To reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction and to promote international nuclear safety and nonproliferation.
- To provide the United States Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants and to ensure the safe and reliable operation of those plants.
- To support United States leadership in science and technology
This agency is on the chopping block. There are plans to do away with it. This budget cut thing is going too far. No one wants security and defence cut out. The American people don’t want this either. One of the biggest dangers world-wide is that rogue nations will obtain nuclear material and will make dirty bombs or the real thing. We must stay vigilant.
There are simply too many congress folks whose mantra is ‘stop spending’ who don’t understand the complexities of the very things they are willing to kill off just to stay in office.
In-depth discussion of the fight against nuclear terror compromised by GOP spending cuts:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Got a problem? Create a new Government agency! That’s the answer to every problem, all problems. More Government. Never change anything….just add more government.
There is an “Unemployment Insurance Hall of Fame”. We pay for the Hall of Fame itself and a yearly induction ceremony. Maybe…..just maybe…….the taxpayers are on the hook for waste somewhere in government. You know what we should do? We should create a government agency to investigate the creation of “Unemployment Insurance Halls of Fame”.
Who would you suggest handle the rogue nations with nuclear material?
This agency already exists. It is not a new creation. Do you not see that nuclear grade material could fall in to the wrong hands and that is a danger to world peace?
Let’s be fair here. The Republicans wanted cuts, but the Dems forced a disproportionate burden to be inflicted on the DOD in order to preserve entitlement programs. With the rapidly approaching deadline for raising the debt ceiling, the Republicans caved on defense spending. Social security was saved at the cost of higher risk to national security.
@kelly –
The cuts to DOD has not happened yet. Are you predicting the future – as in, that the Commission will not get the political will to cut and fix tax loopholes, which will trigger automatic entitlement reform and DOD cuts?
Does anyone really believe that in our Government of wasteful projects, that there is no DOD reforms needed also? I know of a few programs that need to be cut. What also needs to change is the Use it or Loose it budget spending – we are coming into spending season on those.
“No one wants security and defence cut out.”
Yes we do. Amusing article on WSJ that brings a little humor to the cut and tax game.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703293204576106164123424314.html
To Kelly’s point. Government is about deciding our priorities. If it’s social programs than we have to take something from defense. If we want better defense we lose social programs. When we try to argue we want both – the middle class gets shafted.
This may come as a shock, but there are other nations capable of doing this. A couple of things. Is this something that we know is going to happen, or is this a “I don’t know, we may not be able to send out SS checks!” BS ploy. Also, is this functionality being rolled into another agency or back into the Dept. of Energy? Maybe all that’s being eliminated here is waste……as is a separate HR dept., separate office space, separate letterhead, etc.
Funny how it always works. When Government faces cuts, they skip over all the silly crap that should be cut first, and go straight for the Fire Dept., the Police force, Nuclear security.
@Slow
If you want something done right, do it yoursefl.
It hasn’t been done yet but it is one of those agencies proposed to get the axe. I don’t think I can stand to rewatch Rachel to get the exact answer.
As for the Pentagon answers above…I am trying to understand how that all fits in with an agency that is part of Dept of Energy.
Another thing about Defense budget cuts. I can’t figure out why we can’t ask why we have more foreign military installations than there are foreign countries. The defense department will immediately say “we’ll have to send our troops in without weapons or armor”, instead of “we’ll have to pull our military base out of French Polynesia, and we’ll have to close our 27th base in Kuwait”. Cut smart, people.
I don’t think that is illogical at all.
Not so sure I want anyone but us doing the nuclear stuff. That’s just one of those dance with the one who brung you things in my mind.
@Pat.Herve
No predictions for the future, Pat. The DoD has taken significant cuts THIS year already. Significant cuts were made to both manpower and programs.
In addition, the debt ceiling deal resulted in a $350B cut of the DoD budget over the next 10 years. The Commission will look for an additional $1.5T to cut, with a significant portion above and beyond the $350B coming from the DoD in automatic cuts if a deal is not reached.
I don’t often agree with Slowpoke but “cut smart ” is the most intelligent position I’ve read so far, I’m sure there is lots of pork in the DOD budget that we could do without as well as other areas of our government!
Anyone want to know how cutting this is a REALLY bad idcea should read Fallout – about how the CIA phucked up BIG TIME in preventing atomic weapon designs and centrifuge designs/equipment from being given to the Pakis AND IRAN. Seems as if we were so intent on “watching the bad guys” to catch MORE bad guys, we let the bad guys grow in numbers and very sensitive nuclear info get launched onto the internet – and Iran capable of producing high-grade weapons grade plutonium.
Look up A Kahn, Switzerland, and Tischer…. We messed up badly. Whatever safeguards we have left we need to KEEP them in place. To hell with the anti-government people. National Defense is a part of our constitution – and if we need another agency to protect us from nuclear attack – enemy proliferation SO BE IT.
YOu don’t stop paying for your health insurance to cut costs when you have a family history of cancer…. just sayin’
There seem to be many folks advocating for large cuts of the DoD. As a fiscal conservative, I too want lean government. As discussed in my previous post, the DoD has already taken cuts and is programmed for more. As you think about how large the cuts should be, I thought I would take a stab at answering a couple of the points mentioned by Slowpoke and MarinM.
The main point seems to be that the U.S. is deployed to too many locations. Why can’t other countries take on some of the responsibility? The answer is that they can, but it would take a long time for them to be able to do so effectively.
1) The most important factor (in my opinion) is that the U.S. military fully embraces civilian control and respect for human dignity. A few troublemakers notwithstanding, the U.S military treats the foreign populaces very well and behaves with class and honor. This is in contrast to other militaries that have been guilty of corruption and violent crimes (that were never prosecuted). These militaries do not always come from a tradition of civilian control and do not necessarily respect the values of a liberal democracy.
2) The second point is that the U.S. has developed an exceptional capability to deploy anywhere in the world. It takes a very long time (10 years?) to develop a force that has the right equipment, the necessary air and space power, the trained personnel, and the tactics and procedures to perform a variety of missions including special operations, peace keeping, counter-insurgency, and humanitarian operations among others. The only other country that appears to be developing similar power projection capabilities is China (i.e. its own aircraft carriers). If the U.S. begins to dismantle its military, it is not as if Great Britain, France, and Germany will suddenly take up the slack.
Cuts to the defense budget are probably healthy and necessary in terms of getting the U.S. budget on the right track. However, it takes decades to build a professional force with the capabilities and traditions of the U.S. military. After years of war, the U.S. military needs to be re-capitalized. So let’s hope that planners make wise choices that balance needed budget cuts with the requirement to maintain a capable military. In the long term, it will be cheaper to keep the force healthy rather than to re-build it from a hollow force later.
@ Kelly 3406
I like nearly all of what you stated and agree with about 95%. But who says maintaining an empire would be easy?
Is it not also true that the more bases and installments we build overseas to oversee our economic and political interests could also be used against us if we be spread too thin – and cannot defend them from seizure of foreign armies/rebellions/entities? We build it – we buy it, and if we lose it….it becomes another’s prize. And how do we defend such places? Military force which costs (nowadays) in the billions-trillions, not to ignore the US lives on the line.
So how much is too much? Stop colonizing via “military base” – dismantle those irrelevant, and maintain as best (costly + personnel wise) we can those bases most strategic to our national interests.
When the USSR left Afghanistan – hell, when the USSR collapsed and sattelite nations with it, no military bases or equipment were returned to the former owner for redemption or return….. You buy it, you leave, you lose BIG TIME.
Time to cut down on Empire building….
But PORK is how congressmen and senators get re-elected! I wish people would stop harping on pork, for getting pork is how states and municipalities get federal funds! If you go to DC and don’t get pork – guess who goes home next election cycle without a job. Just ask Libby Dole. She spent more time schmoozing and networking than bring home DA BACON (LOL…a pork product if you will :>)) and she got booted from office.
Where do people think those tax dollars from DC go to once back home? They go to contractors and companies of the community (aside from state-run organizations)!!! No pork, see local business and contracts evaporate.